U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–750 PDF 2006

S. Hrg. 109–428

LOBBYING REFORM: PROPOSALS AND ISSUES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 25, 2006

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

KURT A. SCHMAUTZ, Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

TROY H. CRIBB, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 2

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 4

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 5

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 6

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 7

Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 8

Senator Domenici ............................................................................................. 9

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 10

Senator Stevens ................................................................................................ 12

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 22

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2006

Hon. John McCain, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona ............................ 12

Hon. Richard J. Durbin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois ..................... 15

Hon. Russell D. Feingold, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin .............. 17

Hon. Rick Santorum, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................ 20

Hon. Dick Clark, Director, Aspen Institute Congressional Program .................. 26

Hon. John Engler, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Manufacturers .......................................................................................... 28

William Samuel, Legislative Director, AFL–CIO .................................................. 30

Fred Wertheimer, President, Democracy 21 ......................................................... 44

Paul A. Miller, President, American League of Lobbyists ................................... 46

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Clark, Hon. Dick: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64

Durbin, Hon. Richard J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57

Engler, Hon. John: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 28

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 67

Feingold, Hon. Russell D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 17

McCain, Hon. John: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55

Miller, Paul A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 46

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 100

Samuel, William: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79

Santorum, Hon. Rick: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61

Wertheimer, Fred: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 44

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 84

Page

IV

APPENDIX

Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 112

AARP, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 113

John H. Graham IV, CAE, President and CEO, American Society of Association Executives (ASAE), prepared statement .................................................... 117

Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen, prepared statement with attachments ..................................................................................................................... 119

(1)

LOBBYING REFORM: PROPOSALS AND ISSUES 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2006

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Stevens, Voinovich, Coleman, Coburn, 

Chafee, Bennett, Domenici, Warner, Lieberman, Levin, Carper, and 

Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. Good 

morning. 

Today, the Committee begins an examination of lobbying reform. 

This hearing will focus on proposals before Congress to reform lobbying practices in the wake of scandals involving Jack Abramoff 

and Representative Randy ‘‘Duke’’ Cunningham. Although the actions of both men violated current laws, they nevertheless have 

prompted a much-needed review of legal lobbying activities that 

raise questions of improper influence or the appearance of impropriety. 

We must act to strengthen the laws governing disclosure and ban 

practices that erode public confidence in the integrity of government decisions. We must reform rules that allow former lawmakers 

turned lobbyists special access to lobby their former colleagues on 

the Senate floor. We must end the practice of allowing members to 

slip earmarks that have received neither scrutiny nor a vote in either the House or the Senate into the final versions of legislation. 

All of us here today recognize that lobbying, whether done on behalf of the business community, an environmental organization, a 

children’s advocacy group, or any other cause, can provide us with 

useful information that aids but does not dictate the decisionmaking process. Indeed, lobbying is a word that has a long and 

noble history. It comes to us from Great Britain, where the tradition developed that citizens, whether acting on their own behalf or 

for a group, would approach members of Parliament in the lobby 

of that building to offer their views on pending legislation. It was 

done in the light of day, and the medium of exchange was ideas. 

Today’s lobbying too often conjures up images of all-expense-paid 

vacations masquerading as fact-finding trips, special access that 

the average citizen can never have, and undue influence that leads 

2

to tainted decisions. The corrosive effect of this image, and in some 

cases reality, on the public’s confidence in the political process cannot be underestimated. 

We have an obligation to strengthen the crucial bond of trust between those in government and those whom government serves. 

Our Nation faces a great many challenges that Congress should address. If the bond of trust between public officials and their constituents is frayed, if our citizens believe that decisions are tainted 

by improper influence, then our country will be unable to tackle the 

big issues. No major legislation can pass without the support of the 

American people, and the public’s trust in Congress is perilously 

low. 

I am especially pleased that we have with us this morning several of our colleagues who will be testifying. They are champions 

of good government, of open and accountable government, and I 

look forward very much to hearing their proposals for reform. 

Our other witnesses today offer a broad perspective on these 

issues. They represent business and labor organizations that engage in lobbying, a respected public policy institute that sponsors 

travel to conferences, a public policy expert who has long advocated 

reform, and a representative of an association of lobbyists. Sometimes even lobbyists need a lobbyist. I look forward to hearing their 

testimony. 

The issue we take up today is serious and it is pressing. The 

right of the American people to petition their government is a constitutional guarantee and must not be chilled. At the same time, 

it is imperative that the give and take of advocacy focus on the exchange of ideas conducted in broad daylight. The American people 

deserve no less. 

Senator Lieberman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, particularly for moving so quickly to hold this hearing on lobbying reform. By doing so, our Committee, under your leadership, sends a 

strong and clear signal that Congress will come together across 

party lines this year to reform our lobbying laws and remove the 

cloud of suspicion that currently hangs over this institution. 

It is no secret that the Jack Abramoff scandal is the primary reason for Congressional-wide acknowledgement that lobbying regulations need reform. Elsewhere, people may argue about whether the 

scandal is partisan. On this Committee, we know the response 

must be bipartisan. The consequences of Abramoff’s crimes are so 

antithetical to our way of governance and so embarrassing to Congress that Democrats and Republicans, House Members and Senators agree that Congress must act, and we will. 

Trust between the people and their elected leaders is essential to 

our democracy. The behavior of Mr. Abramoff and his associates 

undercuts that trust and sends the message that in Washington, 

results go to the highest bidder, not to the greatest public good. By 

his guilty pleas, Mr. Abramoff has acknowledged that he violated 

the law. However, his sordid story also reveals activity that, while 

technically legal, is nonetheless clearly wrong. 

3

In government, we must hold ourselves and be held to a higher 

standard, to do not just what is legal but what is right. As lawmakers, we now have the opportunity and responsibility to make 

what is clearly wrong also illegal. 

Excellent lobbying reform proposals have been referred to our 

Committee and are now pending here. I have joined with Senator 

John McCain in sponsoring one of them, the bipartisan Lobbying 

Transparency and Accountability Act of 2005. Our legislation directly responds to the abuses uncovered by the Indian Affairs Committee in the tough and independent investigation which Senator 

McCain chaired. It also, I might add, responds to the work done by 

the Department of Justice leading up to the plea bargain that Mr. 

Abramoff entered a few weeks ago. 

The legislation which Senator McCain and I have proposed would 

require more frequent and detailed disclosure of lobbyist activities 

and, for the first time, full disclosure from grassroots lobbying 

firms that are paid to conduct mass television or direct mail campaigns to influence Members of Congress. Mr. Abramoff used one 

of these firms, controlled by his associate Mr. Scanlon, to conceal 

millions of dollars of payments he overcharged to Indian tribes, 

which were then forwarded to him. 

Under the legislation Senator McCain and I have introduced, lobbyists would be required to disclose all payments for travel made 

or arranged, including detailed itemization of trips and all gifts 

over $20. Members of Congress and their staffs who fly on corporate jets would have to pay the equivalent of a chartered plane 

rather than just the first-class price of their ticket. Lobbyists would 

also have to disclose campaign contributions as well as contributions made to honor public officials, and the revolving door between 

Capitol Hill and K Street would spin more slowly under our proposal. 

Senator Reid has also introduced very strong lobbying reform 

legislation, which I am cosponsoring. Senator Santorum, who will 

testify this morning, is working on lobbying reform legislation for 

the Senate Republican Majority. Senator Feingold, who will also 

testify this morning, introduced lobbying reform legislation just 

about a year ago. And Senator Coleman has a different kind of proposal about a commission here, which I look forward to hearing 

about. 

But what I want to say in conclusion is that of the three proposals that are before us, the one of Senator McCain and myself, 

the one of Senator Reid, the one of Senator Feingold—and presumably the one that Senator Santorum will soon introduce—all share 

the majority of the provisions in each. All of them call for increased 

disclosure by lobbyists, for disclosure of paid grassroots lobbying 

firms and lobbying coalition members, for slowing down the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, and for ending the 

abuse of gift and travel rules. There are differences, but they are 

reconcilable. 

That is why I believe, Madam Chairman, we now have a oncein-a-generation opportunity to reach agreement on a broad set of 

lobbying reforms that will reduce the cynicism with which many of 

the American people view their government. We cannot and will 

not let partisanship or institutional defensiveness stop us from 

4

achieving that goal. Frankly, the status quo stinks and cries out to 

us to lead the way in clearing the air. 

Today, we have an outstanding group of witnesses, starting off 

with our colleagues, Senators McCain, Feingold, Santorum, Durbin, 

and Coleman. I look forward to working with them and you, 

Madam Chairman, to pass lobbying reform legislation and to do it 

soon. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I applaud 

your leadership and thank you for calling this hearing on lobbying 

reform. 

With our election to the U.S. Senate, the citizens of our respective States entrusted us to represent their interests in a morally 

correct and ethical, appropriate way. The trust the American people have given us is something we must never forget. 

As the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, I 

have been given a responsibility by my colleagues to ensure that 

the Senate community is true to that trust. It is a heavy burden, 

but one that I am proud to have. I am glad that I am a Member 

of this Committee today because so much of what we are going to 

do will have an impact on the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. 

With these thoughts in mind, I believe that we must carefully 

consider the various proposals for lobbying reform that have been 

put forward or that are still being refined. This consideration must 

be mindful of the current rules, regulations, and Federal code to 

ensure that any new rules or changes to existing rules do not unintentionally weaken those which are already in place. Any changes 

that are ultimately adopted must be the result of thoughtful deliberation, not rushed through in an attempt to show the American 

people that we are doing something about the abuses of the systems that they read and hear about in the media. 

Madam Chairwoman, our efforts to reform the rules governing 

lobbying must be done in a truly bipartisan fashion. We have a responsibility to the Senate as an institution, our constituents, and 

ourselves to use the opportunity before us to better the culture in 

Washington and the Senate. Both sides of the aisle must dedicate 

themselves to improving the Senate through lobbying reform. 

Let me assure my colleagues and the American people as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics that any Senator or 

staff member that is found to be in violation of the Senate ethics 

rules will be dealt with appropriately, as we have always done so. 

I have tried to inform my fellow Senators about the ethics rules 

and what they require. 

I have also observed that there is significant confusion on the 

part of lobbyists regarding their disclosure requirements right now. 

In fact, I had a conversation yesterday with a couple lobbyists on 

this point. They disagreed as to what the disclosure requirements 

required of them. They had different perceptions, and I think that 

is a problem. 

It is also important that we weigh the proposed reform’s reporting requirements and the costs and administrative capacity that 

5

will be incurred to administer them versus the benefit derived from 

a more transparent system. 

Madam Chairman, if you would like, I would be happy to hold 

at least one hearing on the capacity currently in place to administer and enforce the existing rules on the books. Are we enforcing 

the rules that are on the books right now? Do the people out there 

who are supposed to comply with them know that we are enforcing 

the rules, or do they just file pieces of paper and figure nobody 

pays any attention to them anyhow and so they get a little bit careless? I think it is really important that the people know if we do 

pass some additional reforms that they are going to be enforced 

and that we are enforcing the current rules and regulations that 

we have in place today. 

And last but not least, we should as a body give consideration 

to the enormous amount of time and energy we devote to raising 

money for our campaigns and our respective caucuses. It is out of 

control. We all hate it, and it is about time we collectively think 

about how we can get off the treadmill that has given rise to the 

Abramoff abuses of the system. 

I look forward to hearing the views of my fellow Senators as well 

as the other distinguished witnesses who are with us today on how 

we can reform and improve the current system. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Levin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Madam Chairman, thank you for holding these 

hearings so promptly, as Senator Lieberman has pointed out. 

In the early 1990s, with the great bipartisan support of Members 

of this Committee and other Members of the Senate, Senator 

Cohen and I coauthored on a bipartisan basis the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The reforms that were enacted 10 years ago made 

improvements in both lobbying disclosure and Congressional gift 

requirements. Before we enacted these reforms, fewer than 6,000 

lobbyists registered and the information that registered lobbyists 

disclosed was widely regarded as useless. Under the previous law, 

under-reporting of lobbying receipts and expenditures was endemic 

and fully 60 percent of registered lobbyists failed to report any expenditures at all. 

Under the reforms that we adopted, the Lobbying Disclosure Act, 

as it is called, more than 30,000 lobbyists have now registered and 

there appear to be providing relatively accurate and complete information on their clients, the topics on which they lobbied, and the 

amounts that they have spent on lobbying. As a result, while the 

10 largest lobbying firms in 1989 reported a combined lobbying income of less than $2 million, the 10 largest lobbying firms in 2002 

more accurately reported their income, and they reported it at $200 

million. Overall, roughly $2 billion now in lobbying fees are reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act every year. 

Under the original version of that reform which Senator Cohen 

and I introduced in the 103rd Congress, there were toughened enforcement provisions, there was coverage of grassroots lobbying, 

there was zero tolerance for gifts, meals, and entertainment from 

lobbyists, and there were tight rules for gifts from others. Because 

of a filibuster in the final weeks of the Congress, we were unable 

6

to get that stronger version of the bill enacted, and that is a pity. 

As a result, we have seen some of the problems which have recently been so dramatized. 

But when we revisited the issue in the next Congress, the 104th 

Congress, we dropped some of the provisions, including the provision covering grassroots lobbying, the provision which called for 

stronger enforcement, and we had to incorporate a somewhat more 

lenient rule for gifts from lobbyists. We did all that in order to get 

the bill enacted. 

In recent weeks and months, Jack Abramoff and others have 

plead guilty to criminal offenses in connection with their lobbying 

activities. There are indications in press accounts that many of 

their activities may also have violated our existing gift rules, as 

well. As Senator Voinovich has pointed out, and I think very accurately and very effectively, our existing gift rules seem to have 

been violated. 

For example, they contain a prohibition on travel that is paid for 

by lobbyists. They contain a prohibition on travel that is ‘‘substantially recreational in nature.’’ They also contain, our gift rules, a 

rule against a member or staffer from accepting gifts with a cumulative value in excess of $100 from any one source in a calendar 

year. What we have read about raises some very significant questions as to whether our existing rules have been effectively enforced by us, and that needs to be done, obviously. 

But these recent events also dramatize the need to close loopholes in the existing law, as well. For instance, we must prevent 

the sponsors of lobbyists from hiding their identities, either when 

it comes to paying for travel or participating in coalitions. We have 

got to ensure the disclosure of paid efforts to generate grassroots 

lobbying campaigns. We have got to tighten up the gift rules. We 

should not permit gifts from lobbyists and others. We have got to 

prevent the abuse of privately reimbursed travel for Members of 

Congress and Congressional staff. 

So our work is cut out for us. While criminals have violated existing laws and while existing rules seem to be at least stronger 

than they have appeared to be because of perhaps weak or lax enforcement on our part, there are also some gaping holes in the law 

which must be removed. That is our responsibility. This Committee 

has performed that responsibility in the early 1990s when we were 

able to get the current version passed, which did some good, but 

there is much more to be done. Under the leadership of our Chairman and Ranking Member, I have every confidence that we will 

rise to this occasion. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Madam Chairman, thank you, and Ranking 

Member, thank you, as well. 

I probably will be the odd man out on this panel. I don’t believe 

lobbying reform is the problem. I believe Congress is, and we are 

going to do a lot of things over the next 3 to 6 months that are 

going to look good on paper, but until you change the motivations 

of the institution, you are not going to change the behavior. Until 

we eliminate earmarking, the process of putting the well-heeled 

7

above those that aren’t able to be in that position, until we change 

the motivation that the next election is more important than the 

next generation, we won’t solve problems. The problem is us. 

Transparency and reporting solves all that, not more rules, not 

more pads, not more things to mark down, but the fact is the 

American people need to see what we do and how we do it, and 

that comes through transparency. The very idea that somebody’s 

vote can be bought for a golf game and a trip is ludicrous, and if 

that is the case, they shouldn’t be here. We ought to be real frank 

with the American people. We are going to do a lot of window 

dressing, but in the long run, we are not going to change anything 

until we change the motivation that the next election is more important than anything else, and when we do that, then we will 

have ethical behavior in Congress, and until we do that, we won’t. 

Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank 

you and Senator Lieberman for your leadership on this. It is so important for the Congress that we get this right. 

I guess one of the benefits of being the new kid on the block, so 

to speak, is for years and years, I watched the Senate from the outside, and one of the reasons I ran for the Senate, quite frankly, was 

to do my part and do my best to try to restore some public confidence in the institution here in the House and the Senate as well 

as the Executive Branch. 

I think that people all over this country and certainly people in 

Arkansas feel very strongly that public policy should be based on 

the marketplace of ideas, not on the marketplace of political favors. 

I think that the silver lining in this very dark Jack Abramoff cloud 

and some other of the scandals that are going on here in Washington is that the people are going to expect, and in fact will demand, that we do our part to make things here in Washington run 

better. 

I am not going to say a lot more because I want to hear our panels this morning, but I do want to thank all my colleagues who are 

offering proposals because I think all the proposals have a lot of 

merit. Just for the Committee’s benefit, I think my approach is 

going to be to look at all of these proposals, take them all very seriously, and try to take the best ideas out of all the proposals. I 

think, like Senator Voinovich said, this is not a partisan issue. This 

is something that we, as Members of this body, owe to the American people. We owe it to our Founding Fathers. We owe it to the 

history of this country that we get this right. 

So my approach will be very nonpartisan or bipartisan, try to 

look at what everybody has. I think everybody is offering things 

that are very genuine and have a lot of merit. But I look forward 

to spending time in this Committee and in other settings to really 

delve into some of this and try to do the right thing for this Congress. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Warner. 

8

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Madam President—excuse me, 

Madam Chairman and other members——

Chairman COLLINS. I liked that. 

Senator WARNER. I know you do. [Laughter.] 

You thought it was an ad lib slip. I put it right out there. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Senator Collins would accept Commander in 

Chief. [Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. No, she doesn’t want that job. [Laughter.] 

I feel it a privilege to be on this Committee and to join with my 

colleagues as we take on this challenging task. But, I do want to 

reflect just a minute, being one of the older guys on the block. Senator Levin and I came to this institution 28 years ago. I calculated 

we have served under five Presidents, seven different Majority 

Leaders, and 241 Senators have come and gone since we have been 

here. The vast majority of those individuals have been highly dedicated and done their very best to make this great republic stronger. 

I want to talk about some things that have grown and some 

things that haven’t grown in that period of about a quarter of a 

century. First, the cost of campaigns. My first campaign—I have 

been elected five times—cost a little over $1 million, and it was 

under some unusual circumstances, but today we have just finished 

a gubernatorial campaign, a state-wide election in my State, and 

each candidate spent over $20 million. My colleague, Senator Allen, 

is raising a treasury to take on all comers in about the same 

amount. 

Also, the lobbying community. I don’t know, Senator Levin, but 

my rough recollection is that there may have been 2,000 individuals working as lobbyists about our starting time. Now, the number reaches about 35,000. 

But let me tell you what hasn’t grown and what I find shocking. 

It is reported in this month’s Washingtonian, a very good article 

about what is going right and what is going wrong in this city. 

Ninety-six percent of Americans don’t contribute a penny to any 

politician. The politicians naturally respond to people who give 

them the money. That is something we have got to address. As 

Senator Voinovich pointed out, so much of our time now in the 

course of our annual reelection or election cycle is devoted to fundraising. 

But I don’t think we can cast an indictiment against all the lobbyists that we have. I see in the audience Dick Clark representing 

the Aspen Institute. I have been on a number of those trips in 

years past. They were very beneficial, very educational, and constructive. 

I think this hearing has got to send a more balanced message 

than some of the indictments here earlier. The system is working. 

We are still the strongest government on the face of the earth, with 

a beacon of hope for so many others, but we can make it better. 

You said, bond of trust. Well, that statistic of 96 percent not even 

sending $5 or $10, that is an area which we have got to regain and 

broaden it so that the American people feel more a part of this institution. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Domenici. 

9

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOMENICI 

Senator DOMENICI. Madam Chairman, let me first say I don’t 

come to every meeting. I think you understand that. But I think 

this is one of the most significant set of hearings and activities we 

are going to have, and I want you to know that, for better or for 

worse for you, I am going to be active because I think this is a very 

difficult subject and I don’t think it is easy. There is not a simple 

answer, like more rules. It is a lot different than that. 

You know part of the problem is us; I won’t go much beyond that, 

but the good Doctor mentioned it. I mean, we get hooked into this 

system, too. We don’t make very many unilateral decisions that we 

don’t like the system. We use it. 

Having said that, I just want to say that I don’t know where the 

jurisdiction is going to lie for things like earmark and campaign reform, but whatever we do, I am not an advocate of having no earmarks, but I am an advocate for reforming the earmark process. 

The reason for that is, I don’t think that ‘‘earmarks’’ is very easy 

to define. 

I found a huge earmark in a tax bill that had to do with funding 

cancer centers in the States, Senator Durbin, and you would be 

amazed at how it is written, and nobody is thinking about that. 

They all think it is earmarks in appropriations bills, but that tax 

bill has $150 million going somewhere because of how they wrote 

it. Earmarks are everywhere. So that is part of what we do up 

here. I also think we have to tie together campaign reform and legislative reform and the rules with reference to ethics. 

I want to just make one comment since there is some leadership 

here of one party, and I think my party will be here hopefully. I 

really hope that when we say, let us make this bipartisan, and I 

am not saying this to one person, I am saying it to everybody, that 

we really understand what that means. That doesn’t mean only 

that we work together, it means that we not blame each other and 

then say we aren’t going to do reform because of others. I mean, 

you can make politics out of this, but you can’t make it so political 

that you can’t get a bill because you are fighting so much for political advantage. I hope that doesn’t happen. It will be very hard this 

year to see that it doesn’t happen, in my opinion. 

Now, I am going to give you six things. First, I think that you 

have to reform the fundraising activities, and I am crazy, but I 

think we ought to dramatically change from whence we get money, 

and I think we ought to, over a period of time, say we only get 

money from our home States. Just think about that. Some people 

say it is unconstitutional, but it would sure change things. 

Second, I believe we have to address the 527s, and if we don’t 

address them, we have decided that we really didn’t want McCainFeingold because we let 527s take its place and do much of the 

same things. I don’t know how the Senators that sponsored it feel. 

On lobbying reform, I agree with Senator Voinovich. First of all, 

we have to enforce the rules we have, and Madam Chairman, I 

would go with Senator Voinovich and tell him to have those hearings. I think you are going to find that we don’t have the personnel 

or the equipment to enforce what we have, and there is just slipshodness all over the place. I think we should do that now so we 

know what we need before we write a bill. 

10

Disclosure, I think you all know that is important. There are existing disclosure rules. The problem is that since these are such big 

events and episodes, disclosure is taken for granted. It is not being 

done as it was expected from what my staff tells me. We have to 

make sure it is and find out why it hasn’t been, in my opinion. 

I would suggest on earmarks that we ought to go to the appropriators and talk about the way it used to be, if there was a time in 

this Senate’s history when we didn’t have so many and the process 

was more open, and I would submit that we did have a time and 

it was effective, and essentially it is just a simple proposition of following the regular order on appropriations bills and then asking 

the House to be partners by not letting the Rules Committee 

change that so we have the same rules in each body. I am not 

going to go into detail, but if any of you want to know, ask somebody expert on appropriations about it. It is not so hard as one 

might think. 

Senator McCain, I know you want to go further with earmarks, 

and I laud you, but I think there is a way to have what you are 

talking about and everybody would know what each earmark is 

and you would have to vote on it before it became law or you 

couldn’t put it in the bill. We have done that, around 1980 or thereabouts, under regular order. 

We have already got travel limitations. It is just that we have 

got to find out what we really want to do. I agree with my friend, 

Senator Warner. There is some travel that should be done aside 

from CODELs. We all know that. I haven’t done much of it, but 

some people think it is good, and I am not going to argue with it. 

Now, obviously, those are just my thoughts. I thank you for what 

you are doing and urge that you go right on, and I assume you will 

be working in tandem with the Rules Committee because they have 

got some jurisdiction, right? 

Chairman COLLINS. Correct. 

Senator DOMENICI. I thank you much, and I look forward to proceeding. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to 

begin by expressing my appreciation to you and to our colleague, 

Senator Biden, for again swiftly taking the lead on what I think 

is an important issue that is facing our country. I am confident we 

can address these issues before us today in the same bipartisan 

way that we have addressed everything from intelligence reform to 

the ongoing investigation of what went wrong during Hurricane 

Katrina. 

Did I say Lieberman? 

Chairman COLLINS. You said Biden. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. You said Biden, which is in your case——

Senator CARPER. Joe. I am for Joe. [Laughter.] 

When he was running for President in 2004, people would say, 

who are you for, Biden or Lieberman? I would say, I am for Joe. 

I am sorry, interchangeable parts. 

I am sure that most of us on this Committee have gone home 

and heard about how deeply disappointed people are with what 

11

they are seeing in Washington these days, and I think most people 

in my State realize that we are not all taking bribes and we are 

not all lobbyists or crooks, and I agree with them. I have met far 

more good people here than bad, and I am sure that is a sentiment 

that is shared by my colleagues. 

But like those who I have spoken to in recent months, the news 

of the Abramoff scandal has hit the papers and television news outside the Beltway. I am greatly disappointed that our system can 

allow such excesses and such disrespect for the people who they 

send here to work for them. The fact is that the American people 

have lost some of the trust that they place in their leaders and us 

here in Washington, and that is dangerous because, as we all 

know, a lot of people didn’t have much trust in us to begin with. 

That is why I am proud to join a number of my colleagues in cosponsoring one bill, and that is S. 2180, the Honest Leadership and 

Open Government Act of 2006, that I believe takes a number of the 

bold steps, not all, but a number of the bold steps that are necessary to win back some of the trust that has been lost over the 

last several years. 

Among other things, this legislation tightens the disclosure requirements for registered lobbyists and makes it easier for the average American to know what the lobbying community is up to. It 

also makes clear that Senators and staff can no longer accept gifts, 

meals, and expensive trips from the individuals who lobby us. And 

perhaps most importantly, S. 2180 strengthens enforcement of the 

rules governing members’, staff, and lobbyists’ behavior. One of the 

major weaknesses, though, in the current regime, I believe, is the 

lack of effective enforcement. I know addressing these issues will 

be a priority on both sides of the aisle in the coming weeks. 

In the meantime, however, I pledge to hold myself and my staff 

to a higher standard. We are no longer accepting meals, entertainment, or any other gifts from lobbyists. We have also decided not 

to participate in any official travel unless it is paid for by a government entity or a nonprofit organization. We plan to abide by these 

new rules regardless of what may happen with the various lobbying reform proposals out there. 

In closing, Madam Chairman and colleagues, let me just take a 

moment to say that I hope our examination of the rules governing 

our interactions with the lobbying community does not ignore the 

fact that many of us, including myself, are forced to spend entirely 

too much of our time attending fundraisers and soliciting campaign 

contributions, oftentimes from registered lobbyists. 

When I first ran for the Senate in 2000 while serving full-time 

as Governor of Delaware, I spent a year of my life also traveling 

around the country, as I am sure many of you have, raising the 

money necessary to run, in our case, about a month’s worth of television advertising on Philadelphia TV. In total, I think I spent 

more money winning this Senate seat than I did in all the rest of 

my 10 state-wide races for State Treasurer, for Congress, and two 

times for Governor. And today, about a year out from the 2006 

elections, the fundraising work is starting up again. In fact, as we 

all know, it never really ends, and this just doesn’t make any sense 

to me. 

12

1The prepared statement of Senator McCain appears in the Appendix on page 55. 

I want to go back home to Delaware to tell people that my colleagues and I are going to do something to prevent a replay of the 

events we have seen in the news of late, and I think we will get 

that chance. I am afraid nobody will take me seriously unless we 

can also find some way to do something further about campaign 

spending and fundraising, as well. 

And as we consider these issues before us today, I just want to 

say I plan to work with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle 

to do something about the cost of Federal campaigns and the toll 

that it takes on our democracy. Our former colleague, Senator Fritz 

Hollings, had a proposal for a number of years that would allow 

limits on the amounts that a candidate can spend on his or her 

campaigns. There have been other proposals here and in a number 

of States to reduce campaign contributions from lobbyists with public financing. I think some combination of these proposals, perhaps 

coupled with some control on how much television stations can 

charge for political advertising, might be what it takes to free up 

more of our time to do what we were sent here to do, and that is 

to fully restore the trust in our government. 

Madam Chairman and my colleagues, thanks very much, and we 

look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Stevens. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS 

Senator STEVENS. Madam Chairman, I congratulate you on holding this hearing so promptly. Recent events demonstrate the absolute need for action in this area. 

I was a member of the Conference Committee on the bill that 

was finally passed and signed into law that was declared unconstitutional in the case of Buckley v. Vallejo. I still feel that, ultimately, we may have to have a constitutional amendment, but I 

am pleased to work with you on legislation short of that. Thank 

you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

We now turn to our first panel today. I am very pleased to welcome five of our colleagues who have either already introduced legislation or who are about to introduce legislation addressing this 

issue. Each of them has worked very hard on this issue. We are 

going to start with an individual whose name is synonymous with 

reform, Senator John McCain. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,1 A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I 

know you have a long list of witnesses and other panels, and I will 

try to be very brief. I want to thank you and Senator Lieberman 

for holding this important hearing, and I would like to start out 

with what I think is the most important aspect of this issue. 

We have bipartisan proposals. We have to sit down quickly in 

whatever format that our leaders decide and have bipartisan negotiations and come up with legislation or rules changes as quickly 

as possible, and we can do that at the end of the first recess, the 

13

beginning of May, if we sit down and address this in a bipartisan 

fashion. I know that Senator Lieberman is committed to that as 

well as many others. 

I would like to also point out that the urgency of this is dictated 

by the view of the American people as to how we do business here 

in Washington. It is not good, and we need to fix it, and we need 

to fix it very quickly. 

As you know, Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

over the past year and a half, the Indian Affairs Committee has 

unearthed a story of excess and abuse by former lobbyists of some 

Indian tribes. The story is alarming in its depth and breadth of potential wrongdoing. It spanned across the United States, sweeping 

up tribes throughout the country. It has taken us from tribal reservations across America to luxury sports boxes here in town, from 

a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, to 

a sniper workshop in Israel and beyond. It involves tens of millions 

of dollars that we know about and likely more that we do not. 

Much of what the Committee learned was extraordinary, yet much 

of what we uncovered in the investigation was, unfortunately, the 

ordinary way of doing business in this town. 

How these lobbyists sought to influence policy and opinion makers is a case study in the ways lobbyists seek to curry favor with 

legislators and their aides. For example, they sought to ingratiate 

themselves with public servants with tickets to plush skyboxes at 

the MCI Center, FedEx Field, and Camden Yards for sports and 

entertainment events. They arranged extravagant getaways to 

tropical islands and famed golfing links of St. Andrews and elsewhere. They regularly treated people to meals and drinks. Fundraisers and contributions abounded. 

During its investigation, the Committee also learned about unscrupulous tactics employed to lobby members and to shape public 

opinion. We found a sham international think tank in Rehoboth 

Beach, Delaware, established in part to disguise the true identity 

of clients. We saw phony Christian grassroots organizations, consisting of a box of cell phones in a desk drawer. 

I would submit that in the great marketplace of ideas we call 

public discourse, truth is a premium that we can’t sacrifice. Many 

cast blame only on the lobbying industry. We should not forget that 

we, as Members of Congress, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in ways that reinforce rather than diminish the 

public’s faith and confidence in Congress. 

Madam Chairman, I would like for my complete statement to be 

a part of the record——

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

Senator MCCAIN [continuing]. But I would again like to just 

briefly run over some salient parts of Senator Lieberman’s and my 

proposal, and I would argue that these are not written in golden 

tablets. We are more than eager to accept additional changes, and 

we need to do that in a bipartisan fashion. 

This Act requires more frequent disclosures of lobbying activities, 

including grassroots lobbying campaigns and other contribution 

payments by lobbyists. It requires the information to be available 

online. It requires lobbyists to disclose their involvement in travel 

14

by members and staff. It requires lobbyists to report gifts to members and staff over $20 in value. 

It doubles the amount of time during which a former Member of 

Congress and their senior staff are restricted from lobbying. It 

clarifies that the revolving door laws apply to outside lobbyists retained by Indian tribes. It requires members to notify the Clerk of 

the House or Secretary of the Senate if they are negotiating employment which may create a conflict of interest. 

It requires members to pay the fair market value of charter 

flights for flights on private planes. It requires members to file reports of meetings, tours, events, or outings they have participated 

in while on official travel. It requires the Ethics Committee to develop guidelines on what is a reasonable expenditure on official 

travel, determine the face value of a ticket to a sporting event or 

entertainment. It is fair market value, in the case of tickets without face value, such as skybox tickets, the face value. 

I want to mention one other thing very quickly, which was 

brought up by Senator Domenici and others today. We are not 

going to fix this system until we fix the earmarks. In 1994, when 

the Congress was taken over by Republicans, there were 4,000 earmarks on appropriations bills. Last year, there were 15,000. It is 

disgraceful, this process. What we went through at the end of the 

last session with things like LIHEAP and appropriations larded 

onto the money that was supposed to be devoted to the men and 

women in the military and their ability to conduct the war on terror was disgraceful. 

We need to stop the earmarking, and we have specific proposals 

to curb these excesses, and if we don’t stop the earmarking, we are 

not going to stop the abuses of power here in Washington because 

we have seen a specific case of one Congressman and one lobbyist 

who were able to put millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers’ 

money into a defense appropriations bill somehow, without any 

oversight or any accountability, and we are going to see a lot more 

examples of that being uncovered in the weeks and months ahead. 

I thank you, Madam Chairman. I thank Senator Lieberman and 

other Members of the Committee. I believe we know what we need 

to do. I know we need to do it in a bipartisan fashion and we need 

to do it quickly, and I thank my colleagues for their involvement 

in this issue from both sides of the aisle, and I appreciate their 

dedication to this effort, including my special partner in crime, 

Senator Feingold. Thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. I would invite Members, referring to Senators who are witnesses here, after you have given your 

statement, to feel free if due to other scheduling conflicts you need 

to leave immediately. We certainly understand that. 

It is a great pleasure to invite to the Committee today Senator 

Russ Feingold. It is my understanding that Senator Feingold is deferring to Senator Durbin first because of scheduling constraints 

that Senator Durbin has. Is that accurate? 

Senator FEINGOLD. Absolutely. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Durbin, it is great to welcome you 

back to this Committee on which you served for many years until 

I became Chairman, in which case you then left immediately—— 

[Laughter.] 

15

1The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears in the Appendix on page 57. 

But it is nice—I know it is not true, I was just teasing you. It 

is great to have you back. We have worked together on a great 

many issues. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,1 A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I was honored to work with you, and as I have said to you and Senator 

Lieberman, I think your seminal work on intelligence reform reflected the very best of Congress working on a bipartisan basis. I 

was happy to be part of that enterprise, glad that it resulted in 

something that made America safer, and as I said to you many 

times, the reason I ran for the U.S. Senate was to be part of that, 

and I salute both of you for your leadership in that important 

issue. 

Now, you are tackling another big one, the question of reform in 

Washington. It will be just as contentious, if not more so, and I 

think you two are up to the job. I am honored to be here today in 

the Governmental Affairs Committee to say a few words about it. 

Let me say at the outset, neither political party has a monopoly 

on virtue. The vast majority of Members of Congress that I have 

worked with in the House and the Senate are hard working, honest, ethical people. And let me add, too, most of those who lobby 

us on Capitol Hill are also honest and dedicated to following the 

rules. I am going to use a few examples in my comments here that 

focus on Jack Abramoff and the now notorious K Street Project, but 

I want to say at the outset, I think many Republicans in Congress 

detest dishonest enterprises as much as any Democrats. Let us put 

that on the table to start the conversation. 

The outrageous conduct of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his 

like has gone beyond embarrassment. It has had real world consequences for Americans. The same hand that is writing the check 

is also writing the laws, and I will give you an example or two as 

we go on as to how Americans have paid the price for it. 

My first job on Capitol Hill was as a college student, and I 

worked as an intern for a man named Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, the first Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee. He is my 

all-time hero in public life. Here is what he said in one of his 

books. ‘‘When I asked a policeman,’’ he said, ‘‘how some of his colleagues got started on the downward path, he replied, ‘It generally 

began with a cigar.’ ’’ Whether the culture of corruption in Washington begins with a cigar or a skybox seat or a golfing excursion 

to Scotland or a special interest ploy to affect legislation, it is just 

unacceptable and it has to stop. 

The legislative problems we face are relatively straightforward, 

and we have it within our power to make necessary changes. I am 

here to speak on behalf of the Democratic Caucus bill, the Honest 

Leadership and Open Government Act, S. 2180, introduced last 

Friday with 34 original cosponsors. I want to acknowledge Senators 

Feingold, Levin, and Lieberman for their input in drafting the bill 

and their continued work. 

16

The bill is grounded on five core principles: Closing the revolving 

door; ensuring full disclosure of lobbying activities; eliminating excessive gifts and travel from private sources; strengthening enforcement of lobbying and ethics rules; and insisting that lawmaking be 

an open and transparent process. 

Given the present state of affairs in Washington, we believe we 

must establish new and clear lines between those who lobby and 

those who serve the public to avoid the appearance of conflict. Our 

bill prohibits receipt of meals and gifts from lobbyists and bans acceptance of free travel from companies, associations, and groups 

who advocate before Congress. Our bill also dramatically increases 

the transparency of activities in the lobbying community. Let me 

give you just a few general specifics. 

First, to close the revolving door, we double the length of time 

to 2 years that members, senior Congressional staff, and senior Executive Branch officials are barred from lobbying their former offices. Let me give you a specific example. There isn’t a single one 

of us back in our home States now that aren’t hearing from senior 

citizens about the Medicare prescription drug Part D bill, how complicated it is, how unfair it is, and they ask us, couldn’t you have 

done a better job? Couldn’t you have made this simpler, easier to 

understand? What went wrong? Well, take a look at the history of 

this bill, and you will find one of the leading members of the House 

pushing for this bill that I think benefited the pharmaceutical companies far more than it should have. Then he went to work for 

them, a $2 million a year job representing a pharmaceutical association. 

He was not alone. Within the Administration and on Capitol Hill, 

about a dozen others who were involved in writing that terrible bill 

to give benefits to pharmaceutical companies ended up on the payroll within a matter of months. This bill has brought great fortunes 

to these pharmaceutical giants. It brings tears to the eyes of many 

senior citizens across the United States, and that has to end. 

Second, we need to strengthen the laws on public disclosure. Our 

bill will require lobbyists to file reports quarterly, electronically, instead of semi-annually on paper, and disclose more detailed information about their campaign activity. I would like to address that 

in a few moments. It will require disclosure of hired gun efforts to 

stimulate grassroots lobbying. The Michael Scanlon-Ralph Reed 

scheme to use Abramoff’s tribal clients to contact Christian Coalition members to stir up opposition to a gambling bill was appalling, 

and our bill would force disclosure of this type of scheme. 

We also need to deal with the problems of gifts and privately financed travel. We need to strengthen the enforcement of lobbying 

and ethics rules. And finally, we need to make the legislative process more open and accountable. Now, we have specific proposals in 

that regard which are included in the bill and will be included in 

my final statement here. 

I might say to Senator McCain and to others who brought up the 

issue of earmarks, I have been a member of the Appropriations 

Committee both in the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a lot 

of earmarks in those bills. I am for more transparency. I think I 

should be held accountable publicly for every earmark that I put 

in a bill for my State of Illinois or for anyone else, and there ought 

17

to be time between the writing of that bill and the passage of that 

bill so that we can really take a close look at what is included 

there. 

But it is naive to believe that earmarking starts and ends in the 

Appropriations Committee. Take a look at many of the other bills 

that we have considered. Twenty-two-billion dollar favors for Medicare providers in the budget bill. Billions of dollars in oil and gas 

subsidies in the energy bill. Billions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industries in the Medicare prescription drug bill. Billions 

of dollars for financial and credit institutions in the bankruptcy 

bill. Every bill we consider has someone on K Street with a smile 

on their face. It isn’t just the appropriations bill. So we have got 

to talk about the whole process and how we approach it. 

The last point I will make is this. Several members on both 

sides—I heard Senator Voinovich as I walked in the room, and others have said, getting to the heart of this means getting to the 

heart of how we finance our political campaigns. Unless and until 

we address this in an honest fashion, we are carping on trifles 

here. Why is it that we warm up to all these lobbyists? It isn’t for 

a meal at night. Heck, at night, I want to sit down, put my feet 

up, and watch TV. I don’t want to go out to some restaurant. Most 

of us are pretty tired at the end of the day. But we know when it 

comes time to finance our campaigns, we are going to be knocking 

on those same doors. 

Unless and until we stop the outrageous expense of political campaigning in America, we are going to continue to be beholden to 

those who are well off and well connected. If you are a self-funder, 

as they call it in our business, a multi-millionaire, that is one 

thing. But if you are in my category of mere mortals, you have got 

to spend a lot of time on the phone begging for money in the hopes 

that you can run in a State as large as Illinois when the time 

comes. 

We need to do two things. First, we need to address the fact that 

we are creating trust funds for television stations with our fundraising. We are raising money to pay these television stations millions and millions of dollars each time. It is time that we have time 

available at an affordable rate for challengers and incumbents. 

And finally, we need to move to public financing, and for those 

who say we cannot afford public financing, it is way too expensive, 

if we cut earmarks in half, we would have more than enough 

money to finance public financing of campaigns. 

So I hope that we will look at the whole picture. It is a big challenge. But if we just take one discrete part of it, slap ourselves on 

the back and say, we have done a fine job, I am certain that we 

will not be satisfied at the end that we have met our responsibility. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Feingold. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Chairman Collins, Senator 

Lieberman. Thank you for the invitation to testify today on this 

very important topic. We are truly at a watershed moment for the 

18

Congress, and I am pleased that the Committee is preparing to act 

quickly. 

There are few higher priorities than improving our ethical standards and addressing the influence of special interests on legislation. 

That is because the fairness of the legislative process has an impact both on policy outcomes and also on the confidence that the 

public has in those outcomes. 

Now, as Senator Levin indicated, the Lobby Disclosure Act and 

also the changes to the gift rules we enacted in 1995 made a difference. So did the McCain-Feingold bill passed in 2002, which 

ended the practice of Members of Congress asking corporate heads 

of companies for hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money. 

I want to, of course, acknowledge the role of the Chairman, the 

Ranking Member, and, of course, Senator Levin, who were absolutely central to that successful effort, along with my friend, of 

course, Senator John McCain and others. 

But the Abramoff scandal has pulled back the curtain on the influence peddling that goes on here, which we must now address decisively or risk losing the benefits of our earlier efforts. There are 

obviously many components to this problem and many possible solutions. 

But the first point I want to emphasize today is that this Committee should resist the temptation to let opponents of reform 

change the subject. By all means, consider all proposals that will 

have an impact on the problem, but don’t let side issues take your 

attention away from abuses that need to be stopped. Whenever 

someone disparages basic reforms of the gift and travel rules by 

saying, yes, but what Congress really needs to do is X, be a little 

bit skeptical. 

As an example, I will take a back seat to no one in the Senate, 

except perhaps this guy sitting next to me, John McCain, in my opposition to earmarks and unnecessary spending. I strongly support 

changing the rules of the Senate to prevent earmarks and the encouragement they give to some of the seamier lobbying practices we 

have seen. But the key here is that this should not be an either/

or proposition. Don’t let anyone tell you that if you deal with the 

earmarks, you can let those other practices continue. I don’t believe 

that. 

Similarly, don’t believe it when people say that further gift and 

travel restrictions won’t make any difference. If those restrictions 

are clear enough and tough enough, they will make some difference. Free meals, free tickets, fact-finding trips to warm, faraway places during Congressional recesses, these are a big part of 

the lobbying game at both the Senator and the staff level, and it 

is time for them to stop. 

My second general point, to echo a point that Senator McCain 

made, is that in the end, this lobbying and ethics reform effort 

must be bipartisan to succeed. It is not surprising that there are 

political calculations involved in addressing this issue, and the political situation has made real reform much more likely than it 

seemed when I introduced my original bill in July 2005. But given 

the rules of the Senate and the difficulties of navigating the legislative process in a short time, politics could also cause this effort to 

stall if we aren’t careful, and that is where this Committee, workVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:00 Dec 07, 2006 Jkt 026750 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\26750.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
19

ing together, can have a very positive effect, and you have already 

started today by bringing this bipartisan group together, Madam 

Chairman. 

But working together on a bipartisan bill does not mean being 

timid. It does not mean Democrats and Republicans should come 

together to protect the status quo or find the lowest common denominator. Now is the time for bold and decisive action, not weak 

knees. 

With that in mind, let me very briefly outline what in my view 

are the key elements of a meaningful and credible reform bill. 

First, a real lobbyist gift ban. Reasonable exceptions for family, 

friends, and items like t-shirts or baseball caps are fine. But the 

ban has to be comprehensive. It has to include not just lobbyists, 

but those who employ them. We have seen how the current $50 

limit has been abused. Those abuses will continue unless we mean 

what we say and make the ban very tight. 

If that seems too complicated, then just do what we do in Wisconsin. We have been doing it for 30 years, where the State legislature simply said, no gifts, period. That is the rule I have always 

followed in my office here for 13 years. It is a simple rule. It is easy 

to follow. It is easy to apply. It doesn’t mean you can’t have a meal 

with a lobbyist or a constituent if that is what you want to do. You 

just have to pay your share of the check. 

Second, address privately funded travel. I know that some factfinding trips really are helpful to Senators and staff to learn about 

the issues we face firsthand. But I think it is now abundantly clear 

that the exception to the current gift rules for these trips has been 

abused. It can’t be fixed, in my view, just by disclosure, and I am 

aware of the arguments for reasonable exception for charitable, 

educational organizations not involved in lobbying, but we need to 

make sure that any such exception does not itself become subject 

to abuse. 

Third, and this is the issue that Senator McCain and I first 

worked on together in the early 1990s, slow the revolving door. Increasing the cooling off period from one to 2 years is the least we 

should do. But I also think we should take a close look at that cooling off period and assess whether it really means anything if people can leave Congress and run the lobbying show at influential 

trade associations or law firms for a year or two from behind the 

scenes. When that happens, isn’t the so-called cooling off period 

really just a warming up period? If we are serious about reducing 

undue influence, we should have revolving door laws that really 

mean something. 

Fourth, end reliance on these corporate jets. If Senators want to 

travel on what amounts to chartered flights, they should pay the 

charter rate. We need to make sure to make that clear for both official and campaign use of corporate jets because one thing is clear—

the lobbyist for the company that provides the jet is going to be on 

the flight, whether it is taking you to see a plant back home or a 

fundraiser for your campaign. 

Finally, let us improve lobbying disclosure. Here, I think, there 

is general agreement on many provisions to improve the Lobbying 

Disclosure Act, but I think the Committee should take a very close 

look at Senator McCain’s provision and other proposals to expand 

20

1The prepared statement of Senator Santorum appears in the Appendix on page 61. 

a disclosure of the campaign fundraising activities of lobbyists. The 

Abramoff scandal is not just about gifts and trips. It is also about 

the targeted use of campaign contributions. Lobbyists play a huge 

role in the financing of campaigns. Detailed disclosure of that role 

will help the public understand how the lobbying game is played 

and provide a record on which more substantive reforms can be 

based. 

Madam Chairman, we have an opportunity to make history in 

the next few months. I hope this Committee will lead the way in 

fixing the problems the Abramoff scandal has exposed. The public 

is watching and challenging us to be bold. We must not blink. I 

look forward to working with you and Senator Lieberman and the 

entire Committee to develop the strongest possible lobbying and 

ethics reform package. Thank you very much for allowing me to 

testify today. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you for your very specific suggestions 

to the Committee. I very much appreciate your work in this area. 

Senator Santorum, it is a great pleasure to welcome you here 

today. I know you have a long history of working on reform efforts 

as a Member of the House of Representatives and that you have 

been tapped by the Majority Leader to develop legislation. Please 

proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RICK SANTORUM,1 A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Senator Collins and Senator 

Lieberman. Thank you both very much for holding this hearing and 

for your leadership. 

I just want to comment on a couple of things that have been said 

by the prior speakers, and that is that, first and foremost, this 

needs to be a cooperative and bipartisan effort. I am looking forward to working primarily from the bipartisan effort of Senator 

Lieberman and Senator McCain as really the structure and the 

foundation of this package. When I hear Senator Feingold and 

when I hear certainly most of the comments from Senator Durbin, 

all of the comments with respect to ethics, I think that there is a 

tremendous amount of commonality here. I don’t think we are talking about going in opposite directions. I think we very much are 

on the same page and it is a matter of working through the details 

in most of the areas, and I will outline some of the areas of concern, but they are identical to the areas of concern that have been 

outlined by other speakers. 

Madam Chairman, as you have said, this is a task that I was 

asked to do by Senator Frist as a member of the leadership, and 

I have a long history of being involved in Congressional reform 

from my days in the House in the ‘‘Gang of Seven’’ where we were 

uncovering bouncing of checks by House members and using taxpayers’ dollars to cover those checks as well as a House Post Office 

scandal, where there were convictions. There was drug dealing 

going on down there. There was the cash-for-stamps scandal. All of 

that, I stood on the floor with a group of colleagues and pointed the 

finger at both sides of the aisle, candidly and unfortunately, and 

21

took a lot of heat for that, but I was trying to be responsive to a 

problem that we saw. I think we are in some respects back in the 

same position. 

I didn’t stop when I came to the Senate. I was involved in my 

party in reforming the Committee Chairmanships, putting term 

limits on Chairmen, putting term limits on leadership. Those of 

you who frequent the Senate restaurant and barber shops know 

that they are no longer taxpayer subsidized. When I got on the 

Rules Committee, that was my high priority, to end taxpayer subsidy. Yes, we pay higher amounts for our food and we pay higher 

amounts for our barber shop, but those are no longer subsidized by 

the taxpayer, and they aren’t necessarily the most popular things 

to do when you are talking to your colleagues. 

I know this is an important issue. We have to address the perception that is out there increasingly that Members of Congress are 

unduly influenced by what goes on in this town and lobbyists and 

we need to look at a variety of different things. We can look at 

gifts, we can look at meals, we can look at travel. I can tell you 

that I, personally, am at the bottom of member travel. I don’t do 

third-party travel to speak of. I know members wine and dine with 

lobbyists. The only whining I get in the evening is from my children. That is how I decide to do business here. 

So I come at this with a strong penchant to make sure that we 

have a very strong bill and that we have one that is worked and 

vetted thoroughly by members on both sides of the aisle. There are 

good ideas on both sides, and we will work, as I said, with the 

McCain-Lieberman bill as the basis of that. 

We need to look at privately funded Congressional travel, gifts, 

meals, the revolving door of access of members and staff and 

spouses of members and their access to members and the members’ 

offices and to the floor of the U.S. Senate. We have to look at earmarks. I think that Senator McCain is absolutely right, and I agree 

with Senator Feingold. We can’t look at one or the other, we have 

to look at both, and I think both are important things to have in 

the legislation. 

I also agree that we need to look at the 527 organizations as another problem. In addition to all of the transparency issues that are 

outlined in the McCain-Lieberman bill as well as by Senator Feingold, transparency is who is giving to grassroots lobbying organizations or shadow organizations that lobby Congress. We need to do 

the same thing with respect to those who participate in elections. 

We also, and this is something that has not been mentioned, but 

I think this Committee should look to encouraging the lobbying 

community and setting parameters for the lobbying community to 

set up self-regulatory organizations. I think it is vitally important, 

if we are going to establish a level of professionalism and standards, that the industry itself begin to look at doing that and having 

some sort of self-regulatory body to get into the details of the profession more than, say, we could here in our particular bills. 

I just want to say that while I take this issue very seriously and 

I think we need to aggressively pursue all of these areas that I 

have outlined, I think we also have to take into account that the 

citizens of this country have a right to petition their government 

and have access to us regardless of their income or their affiliation, 

22

1The prepared statement of Senator Nelson appears in the Appendix on page 110. 

regardless of their campaign contributions. They should be able to 

come and petition their government. We have to make sure that, 

yes, there are lobbyists for big corporations and very wealthy interests. There are also lobbyists for the Boys and Girls Clubs and for 

the Salvation Army and for small farmers. We have to assure that 

when we set up these regulations, we are not limiting their access 

to plead their case to the Members of Congress who affect so dramatically in many cases their lives. 

I feel very strongly. I have an open door policy in my office. If 

a constituent of mine wants to meet with me or someone in my office, we meet with every single one. We turn absolutely nobody 

down. That is important. I think that is a standard that every Senator has, and maybe every Senator does that, but that is a standard that I think we should hold ourselves to, that you don’t have 

to pay to play to get into a Senator’s office. The fact that you are 

a constituent or you represent a constituent interest is enough to 

get you into the office of every member of the U.S. Senate. It is important that people have a right in the big and powerful government which we have become to be able to have their grievances addressed here on Capitol Hill. 

We are very early in this stage here, but I think that there is 

a great common ground for us to build upon, and I am encouraged 

by that. I hope that we can build a bipartisan consensus. I hope 

that there is a willingness by all of the panelists here to work together, to pull together the best of the ideas, work out the details, 

make sure that we are conscious of both the need for transparency 

and reform and also the need to make sure that this government 

is responsive and accessible to our constituents’ needs. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Senator Coleman, you have been the most patient member this 

morning, waiting to testify. You are also a very active, in fact, one 

of the most active Members of this Committee, and we welcome 

your testimony this morning. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. NORM COLEMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. As soon as I 

am done with my testimony, I look forward to taking my seat and 

then listening to the other testimony. 

Before I begin with my comments, I would ask that the comments of Senator Nelson of Nebraska, who is a coauthor of my bill, 

be entered into the record.1

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

Senator COLEMAN. Madam Chairman, I want to start by thanking my Chairman, Senator Collins, and the Ranking Member for 

the speed at which you have moved in putting this issue on the 

table. I think effort that in and of itself has done a lot to restore 

confidence in this institution. 

I share Senator Domenici’s reflection of the importance and significance of this issue. We know from the Declaration of Independence, our government derives its just powers from the consent of 

23

the governed, and the reality is what has happened with the 

doubts about transparency and honesty, concerns about allegations 

and admissions of guilt in the abuse of power and influence peddling, has shaken the confidence of the American public in government, and we have to take that seriously. 

I think we need to do more than just bring the guilty to justice. 

We have to look at the institution. We have to say we are committed to reform. And what is at stake here is clearly the credibility of the institution, and credibility is the foundation upon 

which the institution is built, and without it, we do not have legitimacy to govern effectively and to serve the people that elected us. 

There are already a number of worthwhile ideas on the table. I 

am a coauthor and support the legislation of the Ranking Member 

and Senator McCain. I also believe, by the way, that transparency 

must be kind of a central theme to reform. In Minnesota today, you 

can go on my website—from anywhere, and all my travel is listed 

and descriptions of the organizations that funded the travel is 

there. So I think transparency is kind of a central theme here in 

restoring public trust. 

And while I support the adoption of a number of the measures 

that are on the table and the transparency, I believe, though, that 

we need to take careful stock of what kind of reforms we are proposing, look at the short-term effects, and also be willing to look 

at this in a long-term perspective and the effects that they will 

have. Change for change’s sake is not the answer, and policy by 

press release and one-upsmanship and who is going to be tougher 

than the other on this issue is not the way to reform this incredible 

institution, this greatest deliberative body in the world. 

These are, as I would say to the good Doctor over there who 

would understand, essential and vital organs of government, and so 

we need to operate with both skill and speed as we work to improve their function. 

In the final analysis, it is not about representative government. 

It is not about our inability to look at ourselves with the proposal 

that I have or questioning whether we can bring independent judgment. I really think that the question before us and before the public is about Congress taking a look in the mirror, and I believe that 

a thoughtful and comprehensive reform agenda can only be 

achieved by a group of respected individuals from outside the institution conducting a thorough and bipartisan review and then offering constructive recommendations to the House and Senate. 

Churchill once admonished military commanders that they faced 

two potential dangers: Inaction because they were timid or overcommitment because they were rash. Senator Warner knows that 

quote. 

That is why Senator Nelson of Nebraska and I, along with Senator Allen, are introducing legislation today that creates a bipartisan Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress. The commission will operate outside the institutions of Congress to review 

ideas and to recommend reforms to strengthen the ethics, disclosure, and transparency requirements governing the relationships 

between Members of Congress and lobbyists. It will be modeled 

after initiatives like the 9/11 Commission and the Grace Commission and premised in the belief that we have a responsibility to 

24

preserve the confidence of the American public. I believe the commission will stimulate a thoughtful national dialogue on reform 

and also provide a bully pulpit if the commission is to hold us in 

Congress accountable for implementing the reforms they prescribe. 

Specifically, the commission will be strongly bipartisan, which I 

think is essential, composed of an equal number of Democrats and 

Republicans. Leadership in the House and Senate from both parties will come together. They will pick the chairman. They will pick 

the vice chairman. They will then pick the members. They will be 

involved in the selection process. The commissioners themselves 

will be a combination of former members because I think it is important to get folks involved in the process who have been a part 

of it and understand this institution. But at the same time, you can 

bring in others, academics, historians, and other experts to add 

their voice to this deliberative process. 

The commission will issue its first report by July 1, 2006. I think 

they can do it that quickly and still do it with the deliberation that 

needs to take place. They will be given the ability to hold hearings 

in order to carry out their duties. 

And I believe in the end, the commission will be able to provide 

to us, to the Senate and to the Congress—and by the way, examining the things that are on the table, the gifts, the earmarks, the 

disclosure, the revolving door, and the travel. But I think they can 

do it in a way that will help reinvigorate and transform the world’s 

leading governmental institutions. 

On the issue of the sensitivity and importance, Senator Nelson 

of Nebraska and I believe that the greater the stature, the independence, and legitimacy of the commission, the more far-reaching 

its recommendations can be. 

This legislation is designed to take the partisanship and the politics out of this process, and I fear that we are seeing a little of that, 

maybe more than a little of that. Sometimes I look at press releases, they look like they are coming out of the political offices of 

our respective parties, and I think we can do better than that. And 

again, many have ideas that are on the table. But I think this independent look will certainly help that process. 

I think in the end, if we bring together bipartisan, independent, 

and wise leaders and strike a proper balance, that will both restore 

confidence and preserve the best of how the Legislative Branch operates today. With the creation of the Commission to Strengthen 

Confidence in Congress, we can seize what many have called, and 

I believe this is, a historic opportunity to position the U.S. Congress to operate more effectively, transparently, confidently, and 

with the trust and the faith of the American people as we enter 

into a new century. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Coleman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

I want to begin by thanking Chairman Collins and Senator Lieberman for your 

leadership on a range of issues. None is more important than the topic we address 

today. 

We know from our Declaration of Independence that our government derives its 

‘‘just Powers from the consent of the governed.’’ That’s why we need to take public 

25

doubts about the transparency of government and their leaders’ honesty and integrity extremely seriously. 

Recent allegations, and admissions of guilt in the abuse of power, corruption of 

public office and the disregard for rules and laws of Congress and our nation, have 

shaken the confidence of the American people in its institutions of government. We 

need to do more than bring the guilty to justice: We need to reform the system that 

bred the corruption. Let’s be clear that what is at stake here is the future and credibility of this institution. Credibility is the foundation upon which this institution 

was built and without it we do not have the legitimacy to effectively govern and 

serve the people that elected us. 

A number of worthwhile ideas are already on the table. I support the bill authored by Ranking Member Lieberman and Senator McCain. I also believe a central 

theme of reform must be transparency, so the American people can get a complete 

picture of how we get the information that helps us do our jobs. I have already acted 

on this so that any Minnesotan can now go onto my website and access my complete 

Senate travel records. I strongly believe there will not be restoration of public trust 

in government if they believe we have something to hide. 

While I support the adoption of immediate measures to improve transparency, we 

still need to take careful stock of what kind of reforms we are proposing and what 

kind of short term and long term effects they will have. Change for change’s sake 

is not the answer. Policy by press release and one-ups-man-ship will not bring about 

what we need which is real, just and workable change. These are sensitive and vital 

organs of government we are operating on, so we need both skill and speed as we 

work to improve their function. 

In the final analysis, this is not about representative government looking at a policy and questioning whether we can bring independent judgment. This is about Congress taking a good hard look in the mirror—and I believe that a thoughtful and 

comprehensive reform agenda can only be developed by a group of respected individuals from outside the institution conducting a thorough and bipartisan review and 

offering constructive recommendations to the House and Senate. 

Churchill once admonished military commanders that they faced two potential 

dangers: Inaction because they were timid or over-commitment because they were 

rash. 

That is why Senator Nelson and I, along with Senator Allard are introducing legislation today that creates a bipartisan Commission to Strengthen Confidence in 

Congress. 

The Commission will operate outside of the institutions of Congress to review 

ideas and to recommend reforms to strengthen the ethics, disclosure and transparency requirements governing the relationship between Members of Congress and 

lobbyists. It will be modeled on initiatives like the 9/11 Commission and the Grace 

Commission, and premised in the belief that we have a responsibility to preserve 

the confidence of the American people. The Commission will stimulate a thoughtful 

national dialogue on reform and also provide a ‘‘bully pulpit’’ for Commissioners to 

hold us in Congress accountable for implementing the reforms they prescribe. 

Specifically, the Commission will be strongly bipartisan consisting of an equal 

number of Republicans and Democrats, none of whom may be sitting members of 

Congress. The House and Senate Leadership from both parties will come together 

and pick a chairman and vice chairman. Senate Republican leadership, Senate 

Democratic leadership, House Republican leadership and House Democratic leadership will also be involved in the selection process. The Commissioners will be a combination of former members of Congress and other independent voices, including: 

Academics, historians, public relations executives, and other experts. 

The Commission will issue its first report containing findings, conclusions and 

recommendations for corrective measure on July 1, 2006, with annual reports thereafter. Commissioners will also be given the ability to hold hearings in order to carry 

out their duties. 

This Commission will be able to provide a roadmap for the U.S. Senate and House 

of Representatives by examining how we handle things such as gifts, disclosure, earmarks and travel in a way which will help renew and reinvigorate the world’s leading governmental institution. 

On issues of this sensitivity and importance, Sen. Nelson and I believe that the 

greater the stature, INDEPENDENCE and legitimacy of the Commission, the more 

far-reaching its recommendations can be. 

This legislation is designed to take the politics and partisanship out of the debate 

and put the issue in the hands of bipartisan, independent and wise leaders who can 

strike a proper balance that will both restore confidence and preserve the best of 

how the legislative branch operates today. 

26

1The prepared statement of Mr. Clark appears in the Appendix on page 64. 

With the creation of the Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress, we 

can seize the historic opportunity to position the United States Congress to govern 

more effectively, transparently, confidently, and with the trust and faith of the 

American people well into the new Century.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much for your testimony 

and for alerting us to the legislation that you will be introducing 

later today. 

I would now like to welcome our second panel of witnesses. 

Former Senator Dick Clark currently serves as Vice President of 

the Aspen Institute. Mr. Clark founded the Aspen Institute’s Congressional program in 1983 to provide nonpartisan educational programs for Members of Congress on public policy issues. 

Former Governor John Engler serves as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Nation’s largest industrial trade association, 

the National Association of Manufacturers. 

Bill Samuel is Director for Legislation for the AFL–CIO, which 

represents more than 9 million working men and women. 

I guess we are missing Governor Engler at this moment, but we 

will proceed. Thank you all for appearing before the Committee 

today. I look forward to your testimony, and we are going to start 

with you, Senator Clark. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. DICK CLARK,1 DIRECTOR, ASPEN 

INSTITUTE CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to participate 

in this hearing, and I want to say at the outset that I strongly support the efforts of the Committee and other Members of Congress 

to reform the rules on Congressional travel. It is critical that public 

trust be restored in the institution. 

As Director of the Aspen Institute Congressional Program, a 

leading sponsor of educational seminars for Members of the Senate 

and the House, I will limit my remarks to the area of Congressional travel. I would recommend the following reforms. 

One, funds should not be accepted from registered lobbyists or 

from groups that employ registered lobbyists. 

Two, travel should not include, in any way, shape, or form, the 

participation of lobbyists. 

Three, sponsoring organizations should be required to disclose 

their funding sources in their invitations to Members of Congress. 

And four, in particular, enforcement mechanisms must be put in 

place. 

However, a total ban on privately funded travel would be a disservice to the Members of Congress, denying them valuable resources to gain greater knowledge and understanding of a range of 

issues that they necessarily have to address. 

As a former member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 

coming from a background as a professor of international relations, 

I experienced the wide gap between the average legislator’s understanding of complex foreign policy issues on the one hand and the 

expertise that exists in the academic community. I saw firsthand 

the necessity to bring foreign policy scholars together with those 

who make policy. 

27

And since I established the Congressional Program in 1983, as 

you have said, funding has come solely from established independent foundations, such as Ford, MacArthur, Carnegie, and Kellogg. We accept no support from lobbyists, from governments, from 

corporations, from private individuals, or from special interests, 

and honoraria are not paid to Members of Congress or scholars. 

Lobbyists are not permitted at our meetings and are not involved 

in the program in any way. The program does not pay for any recreational activities, nor has it for 23 years. 

Nearly 200 governmental leaders, including heads of State, and 

approximately 800 scholars have participated. Seminar discussions 

revolve around four to eight scholarly papers commissioned for 

each meeting, which ensures a diversity of opinion based on the 

scholars’ research. These, in essence, are graduate seminars. 

Participants are required to attend all conference events, which 

last at least 6 hours a day over the course of 4 days during a Congressional recess. These include roundtable discussions, luncheon 

speeches with question and answer periods, and dinners with assigned seating that expose members to various scholars and a 

range of views. Published reports of the seminars are sent to all 

Members of Congress, and the agendas and scholars’ papers are 

widely disseminated on our website. 

A very important supplement to our policy seminars is a series 

of breakfast meetings conducted in the Capitol building for Members of Congress. Twenty-five breakfasts are held annually, providing members with ongoing, direct access to internationally recognized experts and analysts on these topics. 

Members tell us that the exceptional benefit of the program is 

that it provides a ‘‘faculty’’ of scholars and experts whom they can 

call on later for testimony and advice. 

The Congressional Program is a bicameral, nonpartisan, neutral 

convener. In the current political climate, Members of Congress 

need a safe haven where they can study critical issues in an academic, in-depth way with Members of both parties and both chambers. The program has been described by one Senator as ‘‘an oasis 

of civility,’’ and it has been the genesis of major initiatives such as 

the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act. 

We have taken steps to ensure that our educational mission is 

not compromised, including conferring with the Ethics Committees 

to make certain that we comply with their standards. 

Foreign travel is essential in an era of globalization. It is critical 

for Members to personally see developments on the ground in other 

countries, meeting with world leaders, academics, and others. 

Insularity is not an option for the world’s only superpower. If our 

lawmakers are to be effective in addressing immigration or international trade, the war on terror, or other matters, an understanding of the peoples of the world is vital. 

And in closing, Madam Chairman, I want to mention Mickey Edwards, on my left, sitting behind me here. He is a former Republican Congressman from Oklahoma. He is Director of the Aspen Institute Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership, and Mickey joins 

me in supporting these much-needed reforms. His program, by the 

way, brings together promising young political leaders at every 

28

1The prepared statement of Mr. Engler with attachments appears in the Appendix on page 

67. 

level of government to explore the underlying values and principles 

of Western democracy. 

Madam Chairman, I thank you very much, and distinguished 

Members of the Committee, for this opportunity to discuss the subject, and I look forward to the questions. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Governor Engler. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN ENGLER,1 PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS 

Mr. ENGLER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I apologize for my 

absence when we started. I was listening intently to Senator Coleman, and I thought I would take a quick break before this convened and didn’t quite get back here in time, but thank you for the 

opportunity to be with you and this distinguished Committee 

today. 

I am President of the National Association of Manufacturers, a 

501(c)(6) tax-exempt trade association. The NAM was formed in 

1895, and for the past 110 years, we have played a unique role in 

promoting a strong manufacturing economy and economic growth, 

resulting in higher living standards for all Americans. 

The NAM represents more than 14 million workers in the manufacturing economy. Every day, the members of our association and 

our staff exercise the fundamental constitutional right to petition 

or contact our government and its elected leaders. 

In the simplest of terms, we lobby Congress and the Executive 

Branch to educate and inform about the impact of legislation, executive actions, and other public policy on the manufacturing economy of this country. And even though recent excesses and criminal 

activities by one lobbyist is fodder for the headlines, lobbying is not 

a new phenomenon. Given the workload Senator Clark just referred to of the 21st Century Congress, time doesn’t allow our elected leaders to be completely familiar with the complexity and the 

nuance of every single issue that comes before them and the impact 

of every piece of legislation on real people in the real world. 

At the NAM, our objective is to educate Members of Congress, 

Senators, and their staffs through personal meetings, phone calls, 

via letters, faxes, e-mails from our members and our staff. We try 

to provide essential data, research, analysis; by travel outside of 

Washington to tour manufacturing facilities, and these are all preapproved, actually, by the existing Ethics Committee process; by facilitating personal meetings and dialogue between legislators and 

our members in home States, back in the district. We do all of 

these things to inform. 

For the record, Madam Chairman, I would like to submit two examples of Congressional staff tours, one in the greater Atlanta area 

taken in January 2006 and the other one out in Arizona in, again, 

January of this year. So they are both current, but I think these 

agendas will show you and the Members of the Committee that 

these tours, these Congressional staff tours, really help provide a 

very valuable first-hand education about the importance of manuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:00 Dec 07, 2006 Jkt 026750 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\26750.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
29

facturing to the Nation’s economy. They are bipartisan, highly educational, and during these tours and visits, Congressional staff 

have unfettered access to leaders and workers at manufacturing facilities. 

Now, curtailing or making more complicated any of these educational processes will impede our ability and the ability of the 

NAM members to provide input on issues that are before the Congress right now that directly impact the livelihoods of Americans 

and the overall economic welfare of our country. 

It is interesting, already, the ethics debate itself is having a 

chilling effect. An upcoming Houston educational trip has experienced several staff withdrawals since the conversations have 

begun, and it puts now that entire tour in Houston at risk. 

I think elected leaders who cherish our unique freedoms outlined 

in the Bill of Rights to our Constitution should act very carefully 

to ensure the ability of Americans to educate and inform our elected leaders is not restricted. Madam Chairman and distinguished 

Senators of this Committee, this is America, and in America, our 

elected officials don’t hide from those they represent. 

Now, I have been in politics long enough to know Congress is 

going to react. This impressive turnout today is indication that 

there will be a reaction to the scandals that have been on the front 

pages of the papers around the country. There are going to be new 

rules. There will be new legislation of some sort, and it will happen 

soon. So whatever occurs, I think it is imperative that you don’t 

overreact. Just as a majority of Senators and Members of Congress 

have always conducted themselves in a legal and ethical manner, 

so, too, have a vast majority of lobbyists. 

Therefore, as you develop proposals to reassure the American 

people that our government is not for sale, I urge you to consider 

the following points, and I will try to run through them very quickly. 

First, current laws and rules are imposing serious penalties on 

those who have abused the public trust. A lobbyist is going to jail. 

A former Member of Congress will soon be sentenced. The system 

caught them, and additional rules and laws weren’t needed to 

make them pay the price. 

Second, I think Congress has got to be careful not to treat all 

who are classified as registered lobbyists the same. There is a distinct difference between the for-profit and high-profile specialists 

and the work of associations, companies, and causes who lobby directly for organized interests or for a specific membership. Our association, for example, as I suspect the vast majority of these, is 

governed by a constitution. It has bylaws, a governing body, and 

itself has fiduciary responsibility, and there is a very direct involvement of the members. So there is an obvious distinction between 

the 501(c)(6) membership trade organization and the hired gun. 

Third, in an attempt to limit gifts and meals, try not to create 

a paperwork nightmare for trade associations and their members 

who are legitimately using working meals and similar functions to 

educate leaders and staff. A hamburger, I don’t think, is going to 

change the mind of Members of this Committee or, frankly, your 

staff that supports you so well. 

30

1The prepared statement of Mr. Samuel appears in the Appendix on page 79. 

Fourth, as you focus on the obvious excesses, don’t limit the ability of trade associations and members to sponsor out-of-Washington 

activities that educate policy makers on the real-life impact of their 

actions. Globalization, you heard it earlier, requires elected leaders 

to go firsthand today to see how manufacturing facilities operate 

and what the challenges are as they confront international competition. 

Fifth, the concept of personal responsibility has been the bedrock 

of previous changes in Federal law or Congressional rules promulgated by Congress. Personal responsibility may be hard to legislate, 

but it remains the bedrock principle of reform. Congress has to look 

inward, adopt measures to seriously enforce the rules it has already imposed on its members before it attempts to pass the blame 

to others for the ethical lapses of a very few members. 

Before I came to the NAM, I spent 32 years in public office in 

Senator Levin’s home State of Michigan, 20 years in the legislature 

and 12 years as Governor. During that time, I was lobbied by everyday citizens, teachers, law enforcement, union members, business executives, even registered lobbyists. I learned a lot by listening. There were many times when the persuasive arguments of informed citizens changed the outcome. Their real-world experience 

trumped the theories of very smart, well educated staff or bureaucrats. 

Personal responsibility and integrity are absolutes in public office. If the public trust is violated, the offending parties have got 

to pay a price. But in responding to the violations, eroding and impeding opportunities for American people to contact their elected 

officials and representatives is not the answer, nor is punishing the 

law-abiding, hard-working Members of Congress and their staffs 

for the sins of a very few. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

for your time today. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Mr. Samuel. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM SAMUEL,1 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

AFL–CIO 

Mr. SAMUEL. Thank you, Senator Collins and Members of the 

Committee, for inviting me to testify on behalf of the AFL–CIO at 

today’s hearing on lobbying reform. 

The AFL–CIO represents over 9 million workers in 52 unions, 

and on their behalf, we promote policies that will improve the lives 

of all working Americans. We support legislation that will make it 

possible for every American to have a good job with financial security, access to affordable health care, and a secure retirement. 

Labor unions allow ordinary workers to join together and make 

their voices heard. One of the most important ways unions do that 

is by serving as an advocate for workers, both organized and unorganized, in the halls of Congress. Yet even with the participation 

of workers through their unions, the voices of ordinary workers are 

still overwhelmed by an avalanche of corporate money. Political Action Committees set up by corporations outspent labor union PACs 

by 24 to 1 in 2004. The imbalance is even worse when it comes to 

31

lobbying. In 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, 

lobbyists representing business interests outspent workers’ representatives by more than 50 to 1, spending well over $1 billion to 

influence the outcome of legislation. 

The effects of that imbalance are plain to see. If our politics truly 

represented the interests of the vast majority of working Americans, we believe that the recent anti-consumer bankruptcy bill 

would not have been enacted. The prescription drug bill would have 

financed drug coverage for seniors instead of profits for the pharmaceutical companies. The Federal minimum wage would have 

been raised a long time ago. 

The problem of corporations and wealthy individuals buying disproportionate influence in Congress has gotten worse in recent 

years, and the abuses have become more flagrant and egregious. 

Now, a spate of scandals has focused the spotlight on corruption in 

Congress, and they have increased political pressure for reform. As 

a result, it will be necessary to do away with many of the tawdry 

ways in which perks and campaign cash have been traded for legislative favors, especially in recent years. 

But we urge Congress to pursue meaningful reform rather than 

cosmetic changes by addressing the root causes of corruption. Reform should not be used as an excuse to heighten the disproportionate influence business already has in Congress, discourage 

grassroots participation in the democratic process, or inhibit the 

ability of groups representing workers, consumers, and other ordinary Americans to petition the government and participate in politics. 

One key principle for reform is that new rules on gifts and travel 

should not treat individuals differently based on whether they are 

lobbyists, nor treat organizations differently based on whether they 

employ lobbyists. The key consideration should be whether individuals or organizations have interests before Congress regardless of 

how they conduct their lobbying. For example, lobbyists are not the 

only individuals who should be subject to the gift ban. If Congress 

is going to tighten the gift ban, and we think it should, the ban 

should apply to any individual who has an interest before the Congress, subject to the current common sense exceptions currently 

contained in Rule 35. 

The AFL–CIO supports a ban on all privately funded travel for 

members and staff, subject to one exception. Payments for reasonable costs incurred in connection with attendance at an organization’s meeting or convention that is being conducted for reasons unrelated to the member’s attendance should be allowed. Under this 

exemption, the Chamber of Commerce could pay for a member to 

travel to one of its regular meetings, and the AFL–CIO could pay 

for a member to attend its conventions or executive council meetings. 

We strongly support prohibiting Congressional travel on aircraft 

owned by corporations or other private groups. Even the most farreaching reform proposals now under consideration would allow 

such travel so long as it is reimbursed at full cost. But providing 

this kind of transportation is a special favor that is not extended 

to other individuals with the means to pay, even if members pay 

the full cost at market prices. We think Congress should end the 

32

practice of flying members around the country on jets owned by 

corporations with business before the Congress. 

In addition to the travel and gift bans, the AFL–CIO supports 

several measures that address the relationship between Members 

of Congress and lobbying firms. We support extending the post-employment lobbying ban for Members of Congress and senior staff to 

2 years, disclosure of negotiations for post-Congressional employment, and the elimination of floor and gym privileges for former 

members who represent interests before Congress. 

We also support increased disclosure. On this issue, it is important to understand that labor unions already disclose to the Department of Labor all of our expenses related to politics and legislation under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. 

There is no individual, business, or trade association that discloses 

through the Internet as much information about their expenditures 

and public outreach as the AFL–CIO and our sister labor organizations. 

The leading reform packages require, for the first time, public 

disclosure of so-called grassroots lobbying, generally defined as attempts to influence the public to contact Members of Congress. We 

want to be clear that, as a general matter, grassroots lobbying is 

not a problem. Efforts to mobilize citizens to influence public decisionmaking are an important part of the democratic process and 

protected by the First Amendment. But we do believe it serves a 

useful purpose to require more public disclosure of who is paying 

for such efforts at persuasion and mobilization. Senior citizens 

should know that the coalition called United Seniors Association 

was funded by the pharmaceutical industry to lobby for the Medicare drug bill. 

Most union grassroots lobbying and outreach activities are directed not at the general public, but at union members on issues 

of importance to our members and to working families generally. 

This kind of outreach is one of the reasons workers join unions in 

the first place and is an important aspect of their right to freely 

associate. All of the principal reform proposals, the Democratic 

package, the Feingold bill, and the McCain bill, properly exempt organizational outreach to members, employees, officers, and shareholders. 

The Democratic reform package contains important reforms that 

are absent from other leading proposals. For example, the Democratic plan would shut down the K Street Project through which 

Republican office holders pressured lobbying firms and trade associations to hire only Republicans, thereby guaranteeing support for 

Republican-sponsored bills and a steady stream of campaign contributions for Republican candidates. 

We also believe the Democratic package provides an appropriate 

enforcement mechanism through its Senate Office of Public Integrity, a provision lacking in both the Feingold and McCain bills. 

But several aspects of the Democratic proposal could be improved. Although the Democratic bill states that the Director of the 

Office of Public Integrity must be appointed ‘‘without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the 

duties of the position,’’ we suggest that the inherent partisanship 

of the selection process is not remedied by an unenforceable prohiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:00 Dec 07, 2006 Jkt 026750 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\26750.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
33

bition of partisanship. The Democratic reform package should also 

clarify that the office has investigatory powers, and it should be required to respond to complaints filed by the public. 

By themselves, these reforms will not fully ensure that the concerns of ordinary Americans are fairly represented in a legislative 

decisionmaking process that is currently dominated by wealthy 

special interests. Hardly anyone doubts that corporations wield disproportionate influence in Congress when they spend 50 times 

more than working people on lobbying or when their PACs spend 

24 times more than labor unions on political campaigns. 

In addition to tighter rules on lobbying, public financing of Congressional elections will be necessary to complete the job of cleaning up the corrupting influence of money in the legislative process. 

Only public financing can ensure a level playing field where the interests of ordinary citizens and workers are treated with just as 

much respect and consideration as the interests of well-heeled corporations and wealthy individuals. Public financing is the crucial 

element necessary to restore public confidence in our political system. 

This may well be an historic opportunity for Congress to restore 

integrity to the legislative process, and we urge Congress to act 

quickly in this area. But we also caution that the problem of Congressional corruption will not be fixed until the interests of the vast 

majority of working Americans are given the same weight as corporations and the most privileged individuals in our society. Thank 

you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I want to begin my questioning today exploring the issue of travel, which all three of you have touched on. I think this is a difficult 

issue that is more complex than it appears at first glance. To me, 

it is easy to distinguish between a lobbyist-paid golf trip, which in 

my view should be banned, versus the Aspen Institute educational 

seminars, which in my view are very worthwhile. It becomes more 

difficult, however, when you exclude those two extremes and start 

trying to define appropriate travel sponsored by private groups, 

and Governor Engler mentioned examples of that. 

I want to give you another example and get your reaction. In recent years, there has been a very vigorous debate over whether or 

not we should drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, known 

as ANWR. Since Senator Stevens is not here, I can say I am 

against drilling in ANWR. [Laughter.] 

I will also say that I have never taken a trip to see ANWR, but 

there have been trips sponsored in the past by the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, and the Alaska Wilderness League, who are 

very much against drilling and want to take members so that they 

can see it firsthand. On the other side, the primary industry organization sponsoring ANWR trips is Arctic Power. It used to be that 

BP and ARCO also contributed to the cost of those trips, but they 

haven’t in recent years. 

I am wondering if that is troubling or not. Ideally, you may say 

that the government should sponsor those trips, but is it a problem 

to have environmental groups taking members to show them their 

view of ANWR and the industry groups offering trips to go see 

34

ANWR? We are not talking about trips to Paris here. We are not 

talking about trips to play golf. 

Senator Clark, let me start with you. 

Mr. CLARK. My own judgment is that it would be better done as 

a CODEL or a series of CODELs. I believe the only way you can 

really reform the system consistently is to say that funds may not 

be accepted from registered lobbyists or people who employ registered lobbyists and that lobbyists should not be able to go along. 

I don’t know, on these trips that you have talked about, whether 

that is the case or not and whether the money that is being used 

be declared or certified, whatever, in advance. So under the proposal that I am making, those groups would not be able to continue 

that activity, but I do think it would be better done by a series of 

CODELs. 

Chairman COLLINS. Governor Engler. 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I am so anxious to get Members of Congress 

to travel that I would be very supportive, and I would be happy to 

have the environmental groups or the oil companies or the utilities 

take people up there because I very strongly support drilling in the 

ANWR and think that it is part of our energy solution. So I would 

be happy to see people get there. 

I think the solution is disclosure. I do think sunshine matters. 

I mean, put it on the record. Put the itinerary out there. I happen 

to think something that Senator Clark referred to—globalization 

today has put a burden on Members of Congress to travel, that is—

I think the Senate has done more travel than the House has done, 

but we really need every Member of Congress to go to China almost every year and see what is going on and come back and act 

sort of with that knowledge at their fingertips, to see some of this, 

because it is a big challenge. 

And how do we get that done? I fear that if we restrict it to 

CODELs, that the taxpayer cost of this grows so great, so fast that 

somebody will be running against members because they spent all 

of this taxpayers’ money traveling. That is one of the reasons there 

was a chilling effect, I believe, some years back. Most governors 

travel, I think, more than Members of Congress. Senator Voinovich 

and I had some of that experience. I just think that it is essential 

today. 

Let us disclose it, report it. I think reporting in advance would 

be fine. There are ways to put the transparency out there. You are 

still going to be lobbied by the same groups at home or in your office. The facts will come to you. Go get the firsthand knowledge 

yourself, I would recommend. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Mr. Samuel. 

Mr. SAMUEL. I agree with Senator Clark. I think the simplest answer is that if a trip is worth taking to better inform Members of 

the Congress, the Congress ought to pay for it. I am not alleging 

that either environmentalists or corporations have corrupt intent 

when they take members on trips to see their plants or the oil 

fields. But the fact is, they will enjoy the kind of access to these 

members in a relaxed setting that ordinary Americans will never 

have, and I think that in itself is a problem. It is a problem of perception. Certainly, the vast majority of Americans think it is a 

35

problem. And I think it can be a problem, and the simplest way 

to address it is to have Congress pay for the trips. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Samuel, just a very quick question to 

clarify your statement. You called for a ban on using corporate jets. 

We had hearings last year in which we looked at the practices of 

a labor-owned insurance company called Ulico, which had a private 

jet that was widely used by some Democratic Members of Congress. 

When you are calling for a ban on corporate jets, I assume you 

mean that more broadly and would apply it to union-owned jets, as 

well? 

Mr. SAMUEL. Absolutely. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Maybe I should begin with a disclosure. I am a proud and grateful graduate of the Aspen-Dick Clark Public Policy Seminars. I 

haven’t been in a while, unfortunately, but they have been extremely valuable to Members of Congress. 

The good news, as I see it, Dick, is that none of the bills being 

proposed here would limit the kinds of programs you do. You are 

a separate 501(c)(3). By your decision, you are only funded by foundations. But there is some possibility, just listening to and reading 

what the Speaker of the House has said about the intentions in the 

House, that the bill there, or the proposal that is currently being 

discussed, might ban all travel, and I hope that we can work together to make sure that does not happen. 

There are separate questions raised by proposals in some of the 

bills. Some of the bills before the Senate on the question of travel 

allow travel but with disclosure. Senator McCain and I have essentially introduced the disclosure bill in terms of everything that has 

been said, but we both said that we are open to hearing other proposals. One of the other interesting wrinkles here is that a couple 

of the bills prohibit 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporations that are affiliated with a 501(c)(4) or some other lobbying groups from paying for 

travel by Members of Congress, and that approach, for instance, 

would specifically prohibit travel sponsored by groups such as the 

Sierra Club, which I believe has a lobbying organization and then 

a separate 501(c)(3). Those bills would prohibit that. That is a separate question I think our Committee will want to look at. 

I want to go to the question of grassroots lobbying and specifically to ask Governor Engler and Mr. Samuel to talk a little bit 

about the provisions here. The intentions in the bill that Senator 

McCain and I have put in would be to force the light of disclosure 

on all forms of grassroots lobbying, and by that, we are not meaning people voluntarily doing grassroots work for the AFL–CIO or 

NAM but lobbying firms that you might retain. Obviously not in 

your case, but in the Abramoff case, he used the Scanlon firm to 

funnel millions of dollars back to him. 

There is no intention in any of these bills to limit the capacity 

of organizations like yours or others to get their members to lobby 

Congress. That is a constitutional right. Have you reviewed those 

sections of the proposals that affect grassroots lobbying and are you 

comfortable with what you have seen in terms of what you do with 

grassroots lobbying? Mr. Samuel, do you want to start first? 

36

Mr. SAMUEL. We have reviewed them, and we are comfortable 

with them. We think they leave room for organizations like the 

AFL–CIO to educate and try to mobilize our own members to contact their Members of Congress. We do support some outside coalitions to do work, but we have no problem if that organization or 

that firm discloses the fact that the AFL–CIO is paying for that 

service. We think that would be a service to Americans. I mentioned in my testimony that there are all kinds of organizations 

springing up around the country with very public-spirited sounding 

names—for example, the Coalition to Reform Health Care, United 

Seniors Association. I think people who receive the information 

from those groups would want to know who is funding them. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Governor Engler. 

Mr. ENGLER. This is very complicated, as your question intends 

it to be, because if we partner up, we have 50 State affiliates and 

sometimes we will engage a State affiliate in—well, the Georgia 

tour. I don’t know if the Georgia State affiliate, they no doubt were 

talked to. We also have some local groups that are affiliated, as 

well. Now, they don’t really get hired by us to do that, so I see a 

distinction if we go hire a third party to send a mailer out or to 

produce an ad. Then that gets to be almost over into the campaign 

side of things. 

What we are worried about is just how do we continue to function and how much paperwork and burden gets imposed to the 

point where it is a tipping point and you say it is not worth it or 

the company—let us say in one of our visits here, I will use Georgia, we went to the Georgia Power Company to one of their power 

plants, Illinois Tool Works to look at stretch film specialty products, then we went to Coca-Cola, Archwood, and these were all in—

Mead Westvaco packaging systems and an Owens Illinois Plant. I 

mean, these were all, each of these, experts at making things using 

the products. Were those companies then, because they spent some 

money to get ready, they walked people around, they had to outfit 

them with a hardhat in some cases, is that part of that lobbying, 

then? Do they report, too? Are they swept in? So it is how you draw 

the lines. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. ENGLER. And I appreciate your sensitivity and the question. 

We want the legitimate stuff to go on, and if we are after Harry 

and Louise or Harry and Thelma or whoever that was in the ad 

or some of the stuff that the labor guys do with their trial lawyer 

friends, I mean, all of that stuff is grassroots lobbying, as well, and 

I would love to get at some of these ads that have been run by 

some of these people against some of the things that I am for. Just 

protect the legitimate ones. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes, I hear you. My time is up. I will just 

say that I believe the intention here is not to sweep in those local 

affiliates that you work with, although there is a somewhat related 

provision—and this is something else that came out of the 

Abramoff situation—that aims to remove a cloak of mystery over 

ad hoc lobbying coalitions by requiring lobbyists to list as clients—

now again, this is disclosure—not only the coalition, but any group 

that contributes more than $10,000 to the coalition. 

37

So again, this is disclosure. You get a lot of lobbying coalitions 

together. The lobbyist can say, I represent the coalition, but then 

the public has the right to know who is contributing beyond a de 

minimis amount to that coalition. 

My time is up. We are going to be involved in a lot of detailed 

discussions like this, which is why we are open to consideration. 

Senator McCain ultimately has made the bill that I am now cosponsoring with him a disclosure bill because the details here are 

difficult to work out in a fair and constructive way for every situation. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to ask some broader questions. 

For example, are each of you familiar with the disclosure requirements of your respective organizations? Do you have any idea of 

the amount of money that you spend each year to comply with 

these requirements? To your knowledge, have you ever heard from 

the people that you file the reports with, asking questions about 

what you have filed to give you some feeling that somebody is reviewing them or is this just all boilerplate as far as you are concerned? 

Mr. SAMUEL. I guess I will go first. We are aware of the requirements. We do file a semi-annual report. I don’t believe we have 

ever heard back from the Clerk’s office that we have made a mistake. In fact, one year, I will candidly admit, we missed the deadline for filing, and I don’t even think we were reminded. We finally 

discovered the oversight ourselves. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Is it your feeling, Mr. Samuel, that maybe 

somebody doesn’t pay much attention to what is being filed? 

Mr. SAMUEL. I think that is right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Governor Engler. 

Mr. ENGLER. No feedback from anybody that—I just asked our 

folks. I have only been at the NAM a little more than a year, so 

I hadn’t heard anything, but we have not previously heard from the 

agencies where we file the reports. We say that we put in literally 

what becomes over the course of a year hundreds of hours because 

we do a lot of these grassroots tours. They are complicated to put 

together. Since 2004, we have done 17 of them. We have got about 

175 members of the Congressional staff that have come on these. 

Our own disclosure in terms of, we do not happen to have a Political Action Committee at the NAM, so we don’t have that side 

of the house, but we do have the 501(c)(3) Manufacturing Institute 

that does studies, and so they have got a separate set of rules that 

we observe over there. They are not involved in any of the stuff 

that we do on the lobbying or advocacy side. 

It is a burden. What we are worried about is that if the burden 

goes up too much, Senator, we lose members because of the hassle 

factor. They don’t want to put up with it. We are sort of geared up 

to do it so we do it, although we think probably nobody reads it. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Clark. 

Mr. CLARK. Well, I think the only——

Senator VOINOVICH. By the way, Senator Clark, I would like to 

say to you that I only attended one of your events, and that was 

in China last year, and it was the best educational experience I 

have had since I have been in the U.S. Senate. The experience gave 

38

me insights that were absolutely valuable to me as a member of 

the Foreign Relations Committee and also a perspective on a lot of 

other things that we are confronted with here in the Senate, so I 

want to thank you. I have never heard anything but good comments about the Aspen Institute and the good work that you do. 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much. Our disclosure is really limited to providing Members of Congress who traveled with us with 

an exact accounting of the amount of money that was spent at the 

seminar and getting to and from the seminar, and we provide that 

within about one week of the time that——

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you file that with some——

Mr. CLARK. We don’t. Actually, we send it to the member, and 

then the member files it with the Secretary of the Senate or the 

Clerk of the House. 

Senator VOINOVICH. In our reports at the end of the year, we 

have to send it. So that is the way that we officially have knowledge of it and that is the public disclosure of it? 

Mr. CLARK. Exactly. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. Do you all agree that Members of Congress should travel and their staffs should get out and around the 

country to find out what is going on? 

Mr. ENGLER. Absolutely. One thing I heard about Australian parliamentarians when I was talking to one of my counterparts down 

there, they actually put in their budget a specific amount for each 

member, the only purpose for which it can be used is to go places, 

and that becomes sort of an issue if they don’t go, actually. It 

works that way in Australia. 

Senator VOINOVICH. What if there is some unique event taking 

place at a hospital in this country that members of the Health 

Committee would be interested in learning about and that hospital 

is willing to pay the transportation costs so they can come to see 

it. Would it be your opinion that the request would come in and 

Senators then would ask the Ethics Committee to examine the trip 

to determine its merit and if it is worthy to allow the Senators to 

pay for it out of their funds? 

In other words, there are lots of good things that groups will 

bring to our attention. This is a really worthy thing, going up to 

ANWR and so forth. But rather than having the group that thinks 

we should do it pay for it, in fact, we would pay for it out of our 

own funds in the Senate to try to ameliorate any kind of concern 

that you are going to get lobbied on the trip. 

Mr. SAMUEL. I think that is a very good solution. 

Mr. ENGLER. I think it is a fine solution. I just want to protect 

members from being hammered back home by the political opponent who says, well, somehow that was an abuse, because people 

will view that—they will say, if the hospital happens to be in, well, 

let us say in a colder climate in a cold part of the year, that may 

not be as troubling as if it was in beautiful, warm Palm Springs 

at this time of year. They would conclude you were off on a frolic, 

and we all know how these campaigns have worked. So somehow, 

you have to protect the member or we have to create a different 

ethic around here, and this environment has been pretty tough on 

trying to do that. I mean, that is a fundamental problem with this. 

But members desperately need to travel. 

39

Mr. CLARK. I agree with that. I think in this day and age, it 

would be foolhardy for members not to have an opportunity to travel to other countries. Most of what I do is foreign policy, and I 

think by going to the country that you are studying—Senator 

Voinovich mentioned our trip to China. We also do a conference, a 

seminar in the Islamic world each year, and one in Latin America 

each year, and one in Russia or Europe each year because these 

are the topics we are discussing, and we look at relevant things on 

the ground and meet with parliamentarians there and others. So 

I think it is essential that travel not be restricted so that the average member really doesn’t have the opportunity to travel. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to make one last comment, 

which is that the smart Members of the Senate, when they are 

traveling or when their staff are traveling, should notify the Ethics 

Committee beforehand so that we can review it and tell them 

whether or not it fits in with the rules. So I think that the public 

should know that the smart people do that, and that is one way 

that you eliminate some of the problems that we are talking about. 

Mr. CLARK. As a matter of fact, we do that. We have submitted 

all five of our conferences for this year to the Senate Ethics Committee, and they are in the process of reviewing all of those to 

make sure that they meet the criteria of the Senate. 

Mr. ENGLER. And we do that with our plant tours, as well. They 

come to your committee. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

If I may say to Mr. Samuel, welcome. It is good to see you. To 

my old colleague, Governor Engler, it is great to see you. Thanks 

for joining us today. And to the real Dick Clark—— [Laughter.] 

Not to be confused with the world’s oldest teenager, the other 

Dick Clark, we are glad you are here. Thanks for coming and for 

being forever young. 

I think I want to maybe direct a question to Governor Engler and 

then maybe some other members of the panel, and I apologize for 

ducking out. We have another hot hearing going on with respect to 

flood insurance reform on the heels of Katrina, and I am trying to 

bounce back and forth between both of those, so I missed your testimony. So if I am asking some questions that are duplicative, let 

me know. 

Before I ask my specific question, Governor, let me just ask each 

of you to take maybe 30 seconds and point out a couple of broad 

areas you think that there is unanimity in opinion on this panel 

or some things that you really think you all three agree on that we 

ought to consider as we go forward and take up this legislation? 

Bill, if we could start with you, that would be great. Where do you 

think you all agree? 

Mr. SAMUEL. Well, I think, if I heard the testimony right, I think 

we all agree there needs to be greater disclosure. I am not sure 

how much further we go than that, but we will study the recommendations. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Governor Engler. 

Mr. ENGLER. I think we also agree that enforcement of existing 

policies and rules is real important and that in enforcing them, to 

40

some extent, the members and lobbyists who are regulated by them 

are being punished because they have violated them. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Senator Clark. 

Mr. CLARK. I believe disclosure is needed, and I think we all 

agree upon it. I think we all agree that travel is important, that 

it not be restricted in a way that—it is very important that it be 

restricted in a way that takes the special interests out of paying 

for this. But I think it remains essential that members travel. 

Senator CARPER. I have just sort of a follow-up to that. We have 

a situation where if we have a ban on gifts or a ban on travel, let 

us say it is illegal for a lobbyist to take somebody, a member or 

a staff person, out to dinner. But if a lobbyist and a Senator or a 

Member of the House go out to dinner, the lobbyist makes a $5,000 

donation to the member’s campaign reelection committee and then 

the member pays for the meal, have we really accomplished all 

that much by having a ban on gifts? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, it sounds to me like you just had a fundraiser. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. If you heard my earlier testimony, we have 

them all the time around here. 

Mr. ENGLER. I think there is something absurd about that——

Senator CARPER. Too often. 

Mr. ENGLER [continuing]. Where if I give you a check, we can 

have a meal together, but if I don’t give you a check, we can’t, unless if we do then you pay for your meal and I pay for mine. I 

mean, that is just counterintuitive, and yet—well, we just stayed 

away from that in our testimony because I suspect that wasn’t necessarily under consideration here. You have had other novel ideas 

tossed about, and I will leave it to you to work on. 

Part of this is in defining how big is the problem we are trying 

to fix, Senator, and the personal responsibility of the members at 

the end of the day is what is going to decide a lot of this and how 

they conduct themselves. I don’t know what laws will work to fix 

that. 

Mr. SAMUEL. If I could just say——

Senator CARPER. Mr. Samuel. 

Mr. SAMUEL [continuing]. In response to that, I think tinkering 

around the edges of the campaign finance laws is probably not 

going to solve the problem, which is why we have called today and 

for many years for public financing of campaigns. I think you 

would all benefit from that and your spouses and families would 

benefit from that, and I think our democracy would benefit from it. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. CLARK. I don’t have a further comment. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Now, after that specific question, Governor Engler, I think you include some trip itineraries in your testimony, I believe. I missed that, but I understand you did. 

Mr. ENGLER. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. But it is clear from those documents that the 

individuals that you brought to, I think, Atlanta and maybe to 

Phoenix had full days and weren’t on anything like a vacation. Are 

there any limits, however, on how much you and other lobbyists or 

professional organizations can spend to transport, to feed, to entertain members or staff when they are taken on trips of this nature? 

41

Should there be some kind of limits, and does NAM have any policy 

on this? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I know we have—those meals and that would 

be covered by our policy, a widely attended event, but it still is reported. I mean, some of these locations, it hasn’t been problematic, 

but we feel we are public with them and fully reporting. They are 

not walking away with fancy suitcases and traveling outfits that 

we provide for them. They don’t get an NAM sportcoat for making 

the trip, that kind of thing. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Senator Clark, you served in this body 

earlier in your career. What years were you here? I think you 

served for 6 years, did you not? 

Mr. CLARK. That is correct. I left in January 1979. 

Senator CARPER. I am certain that you and your staff had at 

least some contact during that time with lobbyists, did you not? 

Mr. CLARK. Oh, absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. Would you just talk to us a little bit about those 

contacts? Were they different from the kinds of contacts that we 

have now with lobbyists and outside interests? 

Mr. CLARK. I don’t think they are different in nature. They are 

different in volume. There are many more lobbyists, as several 

members of the panel have said. But not being a recipient of the 

lobbying in the last 25 years, I am not sure in detail what that difference is. 

Senator CARPER. OK. You do spend a fair amount of time with 

Members of the House and the Senate. 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just ask, compared to when you were 

serving here, do you think there has been an erosion of ethics in 

the Congress in those who serve as members and staff? 

Mr. CLARK. I would say yes. 

Senator CARPER. Could you add any more than that? 

Mr. CLARK. I think it stems from a lot more money in politics, 

both in the election system and otherwise. I just think there are 

many more opportunities now for lapses than existed then. But I 

have not thought about it systematically by comparison of the two 

periods. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. My time has expired. 

Mr. CLARK. That is an impression. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. I would just say to my colleagues, 

again, we actually ran the numbers. This is my 12th state-wide 

race this year. When I ran for the Senate against Senator Roth in 

2000, we spent more in that campaign than I spent in my previous 

10 state-wide races combined. You can look at the curve in terms 

of state-wide races and what it costs. It is going up exponentially. 

It is not going up on a straight line. 

For me, I come back to what I said earlier. I am more troubled 

by that than I am by this issue of meals and accepting a gift and 

stuff like that. I think we are going to pass legislation that says 

we are going to ban gifts, we are going to ban travel, we are going 

to have much better enforcement of the laws that exist, all of which 

are important, especially the last one. But I think we have an opportunity here to address more of the root problem, and that is the 

issue just of how much time we spend helping not just ourselves 

42

but others who are running in campaigns all over the country, and 

it is a huge demand on our time, and I think it poses maybe greater problems and concerns than what we are dealing with here. 

Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My more senior colleague, I know that he is a graduate of the Aspen Institute. 

I still consider myself the student. I have been to a couple of Aspen 

seminars. 

It is interesting. We come here, and I sit in my seat in our corner 

of the chamber, and we go to lunch on Tuesday, Wednesday, and 

Thursday with my colleagues on our side of the chamber. Other 

than CODELs, in fact, Aspen probably provides one of the few bicameral or bipartisan intensive policy discussions that we have, 

and I think that is a pretty good thing. 

My concern, Senator Clark, is that your approach is a little too 

narrow when you just say CODELs and the concern is a reflection 

upon the reality that in a couple of years down the road, and it 

goes perhaps a little bit to what Governor Engler talked about, but 

not just the constituents back home looking and saying, what are 

you doing with your budget, but the reality is that we are going 

to be looking at budget issues and on the table are going to be defense and going to be education and homeland security and border 

security and Katrina-type of crises, and then travel, or foreign travel. I can tell you from experience this past year, we had about two 

or three efforts to cut things related to foreign aid or anything like 

that in regard to more pressing domestic matters. 

And so in the end, what I worry is that we are going to have an 

institution in which understanding that China relationship is pretty important, and it is important domestically for my manufacturers in Minnesota, for my rank and file workers in Minnesota, and 

if we lose the ability to do that, I think this country is going to be 

in trouble. 

So I clearly come down on the side of transparency, both disclosure, as my colleague Senator Voinovich talked about, up front, so 

we know beforehand, we kind of pre-screen things, but then in the 

end, tell your taxpayers what you are doing. 

I think, for instance, Senator Clark, AIPAC does a service in 

having members go to Israel when you get to meet with leaders, 

and that would be prohibited if we take the approach that has been 

articulated here. So I don’t think that helps us be better Senators, 

and I worry about the choices that we are going to have to make 

if, in fact, we go back to just CODELs. Then choices are going to 

be made, and they are not going to be made that provide a greater 

understanding of those relationships that have a real impact. 

Would you agree with that or disagree? 

Mr. CLARK. I agree with it. I do believe that if the only travel 

that is allowed would be CODELs, that certainly is not going to 

provide the kind of broad experience that members need because 

taxpayers are not going to, and I assume the Members of the Congress are not going to increase the travel budget to a point that 

would be necessary to do that. I do think a CODEL on some occasions, for example, the one that Madam Chairman talked about, is 

a better way in that particular case. But I don’t think that 

43

CODELs can be the only approach. I think if the special interests 

are out of funding Congressional travel and you can make arrangements that fit that category, that they should be allowed. 

You mentioned the trips of the AIPAC. I don’t know the details 

at all of that particular organization or travel, but I think they and 

many other groups could organize in a way to meet the criteria 

that I am citing if there were no lobbyists involved in any way in 

the planning or in the trip or in paying for the trip directly or indirectly. Then I think it would certainly meet this criteria, and I 

think most organizations—many organizations could do that. 

Senator COLEMAN. I think we have to take a look at that. I always prided myself when I was a mayor on public-private partnerships. I never believed that taxpayers had to pay for everything. I 

never believed the taxpayers were responsible for all the growth 

and development. So I worked closely with the business community, the nonprofit community. For a city, the way you grow a city 

is you have got the three legs of a stool—government, private sector, nonprofit, and so I worry here we are going to kind of cut off 

two of those legs in terms of educational opportunities, things that 

I think make us better public officials. 

One other area of concern. I am looking at an independent review of these issues because, again, I really think that we have to 

do this outside the kind of intensive partisan political atmosphere 

that we are in now, but we have to do it, and we need to do it 

quickly, and we need to do it well. The question I have is a question of scope, and I would ask each of you, if there was to be an 

independent commission looking at this issue, there is concern if 

we just look at travel, we are not getting to the root of it, and I 

think that phrase has been used. How do we get to the root of the 

problem? Can each of you just articulate a range of issues that 

need to be looked at if we want to get to the root of the problem? 

Mr. Samuel. 

Mr. SAMUEL. Well, as I indicated in my testimony, the problem 

is pretty far-reaching and solutions are not easy to pinpoint. As I 

said, the fact is that groups representing corporations and businesses outspend unions, 50–1 in their lobbying and 24–1 in terms 

of their political donations. Those are big issues to tackle. It is not 

limited to meals and travel. It is the way our democracy operates 

and how we petition our government. So I would recommend the 

broadest possible scope for your inquiry. 

Senator COLEMAN. Governor Engler. 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, just on the record, obviously I don’t accept the 

characterization of how the current campaign finance is working, 

and I have for a long time not had a lot of sympathy for the ‘‘poor 

underfunded labor unions’’ in the political process and some of 

their well-heeled allies. So rather than go down that route, that is 

a whole separate inquiry if you want to go into the funding of campaigns. Public funding is a good way to set up incumbent protection, and I think there are a lot of concerns about that whole thing. 

In terms of scope, I think there are a lot of companies out there 

who have very firm gift ban policies. They don’t let corporate purchasing staffs accept travel, trips, or gifts. There are some models, 

perhaps, there. There are also perhaps models in terms of what 

gets encouraged. I just am very concerned that in the zeal to reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:00 Dec 07, 2006 Jkt 026750 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\26750.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
44

1The prepared statement of Mr. Wertheimer with attachments appears in the Appendix on 

page 84. 

spond, that we go overreaching and we are not hitting the problem 

but we are creating other problems that become more acute. Even 

Mr. Clark’s formulation on keeping the lobbyists out, who is a lobbyist when somebody is traveling because the most effective lobbyists may well be the lay leader in AIPAC. I know a couple of our 

CEOs that have been active there. They are far better than anybody else that could lobby on that issue when they have an opportunity. They don’t lobby, but they are powerfully persuasive on a 

point of view. I don’t want to single them out, but we have mentioned that organization. It is one I respect very much. There are 

many others in the same situation. 

So the sunshine has to cure this. We cannot keep track of who 

everybody comes into contact with. At the end of the day, it is your 

own integrity that is on the line. You have to decide. 

Mr. CLARK. I am speaking only of registered lobbyists, of course. 

I was intrigued by the commission proposal idea that you made 

here at the table a few minutes ago, particularly if it could be done 

in time to really face this issue rather soon. If such a commission 

were to be formed, I think the issues have to be very broad. I would 

certainly include campaign finance reform, all of the things we 

have talked about here today, and probably the internal working 

of the Congress. Several members of the panel mentioned various 

things that would include that. So very broad and yet it will have 

to be specific enough when the work starts that it be done in time 

for legislation to address this quickly. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

I want to thank this panel. We will be in touch with you to get 

further information from you, and we very much appreciate your 

participation today. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGLER. Thank you very much for the opportunity. 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you. 

Mr. SAMUEL. Thanks. 

Chairman COLLINS. Our third panel brings together two accomplished professionals with experience in the laws that govern lobbying disclosure. Fred Wertheimer, the President and CEO of Democracy 21, has spent more than 30 years working on the issues 

of money in politics, government accountability, and reform of the 

political system. I had the pleasure of working very closely with 

Mr. Wertheimer during the campaign finance reform battles, and 

I have a great deal of respect for his knowledge. 

Paul Miller is the President of the American League of Lobbyists. 

In his capacity, he works to ensure professionalism, competence, 

and high ethical standards within the lobbying community, and we 

are grateful for your presence here today. 

Mr. Wertheimer, we will begin with you. 

TESTIMONY OF FRED WERTHEIMER,1 PRESIDENT, 

DEMOCRACY 21

Mr. WERTHEIMER. Thank you very much, and needless to say, we 

greatly appreciated the leadership that you and Senator Lieberman 

45

and others provided on that very tough battle on the 2002 campaign finance bill. 

I would like to thank you and the other Members of the Committee for this opportunity to testify and also would like to thank 

you for moving so quickly on this issue. I would also like to note 

our appreciation for the work that this Committee did in the 1990s 

under the leadership of Senator Levin, which resulted in some very 

important lobbying and ethics reforms. 

According to a recent CNN–USA Today-Gallup poll taken in January, ‘‘Corruption ranked among the concerns most often cited by 

those polled, with 43 percent telling pollsters it would be an extremely important issue in 2006,’’ just 2 percent below the 45 percent response for the war in Iraq and terrorism. 

A Washington Post-ABC poll taken on January 10 found that 90 

percent of the responders said it should be illegal for lobbyists to 

give Members of Congress gifts, trips, or anything else of value. 

Again, I will repeat that. Ninety percent said that gifts, travel, and 

anything of value from lobbyists should be banned. Two-thirds of 

those respondents said it should be illegal for lobbyists to make 

campaign contributions to Members of Congress. 

These polls show that the American people are looking for strong 

medicine to solve very serious problems they see in the way Washington works and the way lobbyists function in Congress. 

The opportunities to enact basic government integrity reforms 

are cyclical in nature. They come when problems and scandals 

arise, as they have now. And that means now is the time to act. 

We think it is essential for this Committee and the Congress to 

move quickly to act on legislation, thoughtfully but quickly. We all 

know that in reality, time passes very quickly here, particularly in 

an election year, so we would urge you to move as quickly as possible on these issues. 

There are really two bottom-line issues here. First, the multiple 

ways in which lobbyists and lobbying groups use money to curry 

favor and gain influence in Congress. And second, the absence of 

effective enforcement of the laws and ethics rules that cover members. 

Our organization has joined with six other reform groups to set 

forth six benchmarks for lobbying reform. We have submitted our 

benchmarks to the Committee, and I would ask that this statement 

be included in the record at this point. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

Mr. WERTHEIMER. Thank you. Our organizations all support fundamental campaign finance reforms, including public financing of 

elections, as essential in the end to solve the problems that have 

been illustrated by the recent scandals in Washington. We also believe there are very important lobbying reforms that can and 

should be enacted now in order to address specific problems. 

The various bills have presented a number of important and valuable proposals. I think, as we all know, in the end it is the details 

that will determine the effectiveness of the proposals. We would 

urge this Committee to take the best of all the various proposals 

and come up with the strongest possible bill. 

We think it is essential to break the nexus between lobbyists’ 

money and lawmakers. If you look at what Jack Abramoff did, he 

46

1The prepared statement of Mr. Miller with attachments appears in the Appendix on page 

100. 

used money on Capitol Hill in every way he could think of. He 

made contributions, arranged contributions, arranged trips, provided meals, arranged skybox tickets. We think that while his activities turned out to be criminal in the end, those kinds of tools 

are the common tools of lobbying in Washington, and this has to 

be changed. 

I would like to just go over a couple of things our organizations 

support. A ban on private interests financing travel for members 

and Congressional staff as well as for Federal judges and Executive 

Branch officials. We believe that trips for official business should 

be paid for by the public and through public funds. 

We also think it is essential to end the practice of subsidized 

travel in the form of company and other jet planes being made 

available at very low prices for members to travel. 

We support a ban on gifts to members, and we think it is essential that any new restriction close a current gift loophole which allows lobbyists and others to pay for lavish parties to honor Members of Congress. It doesn’t make sense to us to say a lobbyist can’t 

pay $25 for a meal and yet can pay $25,000 to finance a party for 

a member at the National Conventions. 

There are other provisions we support. I would like to just focus 

on one. It is essential—essential—to change the way these rules 

are enforced. We have proposed an Office of Public Integrity in the 

Congress. We have set out the responsibilities this office should 

have, and that includes the ability to investigate matters, receive 

complaints, and present cases to the Ethics Committees, and this 

office must be adequately financed. 

I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee has. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Mr. Miller. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL A. MILLER,1 PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

LEAGUE OF LOBBYISTS 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chairman, I have a longer statement I 

would like to ask that be entered into the record, if possible. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Madam Chairman, Members of the 

Committee, my name is Paul Miller, and I serve as President of the 

American League of Lobbyists (ALL). I am real pleased to be here 

to hear the discussions today on lobbying reform and your attempts 

to do so. 

As this Committee knows, lobbying Congress is not only a completely legitimate part of our democratic process, it is also essential 

to its effectiveness. Lobbying is a fundamental right guaranteed by 

our Constitution, and professional lobbyists, such as ALL’s members, perform a critically important role in helping citizens communicate factual information and in advocating their interests and 

concerns to public officials, like yourselves. 

Regrettably, a widespread misperception exists today about what 

lobbying involves and what lobbyists do. This misperception is not 

new, but it has been elevated to an extraordinary level as a result 

of the activities of Mr. Abramoff and his associates. Those activities 

47

not only strike at the heart of our democracy, they also have damaged severely the vast majority of lobbying professionals who perform their role in our democracy in an ethical and totally legitimate way. 

Members of our profession are as disgusted and appalled by what 

Mr. Abramoff has done as you are, but we should not allow the actions of a few unscrupulous operatives to paint our entire profession as crooks who will stop at nothing to have their way with 

Members of Congress. This is far from the truth, and I hope today’s 

hearing will demonstrate that. 

The past 3 weeks have not been easy on anyone. We have seen 

real outrage by the public by what they perceive as a profound corruption of their government. Our government is not corrupt. Lobbyists are not bribing people. And Members of Congress are not being 

bought for campaign contributions. One man broke the law by 

lying, cheating, and stealing from his clients. Unfortunately, he 

was a lobbyist. 

I want to assure this Committee and the American people that 

Mr. Abramoff is not the norm in our profession. He truly is the exception. 

Lobbyists represent the interests of every American, from small 

rural towns to the big cities. If you were ever a member of the Girl 

Scouts, if you ever used a library, if you ever road a snowmobile, 

if you ever played on a sports team, if you own a gun or think ordinary people should not be allowed to own guns, if you are pro-life 

or pro-choice, if you are 65 or older, if you work in a steel mill or 

own a steel mill, if you have done any of these activities, if you 

share any of these characteristics, you have been represented at 

some time or another by a lobbyist, and that lobbyist was ethical, 

professional, and fulfilling a vital role in our democracy. 

Virtually everyone in our democracy, whether they are aware of 

it or not, has had a lobbyist working on their behalf at one time 

or another in a way that is quite legitimate and that enjoys the 

protection of our Constitution. You could say that lobbying, when 

it is practiced ethically, is as American as Mom and apple pie to 

this country. 

Effective lobbying is not about access or money, it is about forthright, ethical communications on issues that impact the livelihood 

of legitimate businesses and constituents back home that you all 

represent. What most lay people view as lobbying, the actual communication with government officials, represents the smallest portion of a lobbyist’s time. A far greater portion is devoted to those 

other activities of preparation, information, and communication. 

Those activities, Madam Chairman, are essential to the fabric of 

our democracy, and when they are abused and corrupted, we all 

suffer. 

But before any new lobbying reforms are enacted, we urge Congress not to allow the egregious actions of a few to provoke a kneejerk reaction that may result in more damage to the system. 

It is our view that any new reforms will have to include four key 

elements if they are to be effective. They are enforcement, review 

of the current rules and regulations, education and training, and 

the Constitution. 

48

The first step has to be a comprehensive review of the current 

rules to see what, if any, rules aren’t working. Right now, I don’t 

think we can say with certainty that the system is broken. We 

can’t know if the current rules work or not because we don’t have 

an enforcement mechanism in place to gauge this. No matter how 

well intentioned the reform effort may be, it will be meaningless 

to the American people if we first don’t begin by talking about enforcement of the current rules. 

If we can solve the enforcement issue, we then have to discuss 

the current rules and regulations. We are here today because one 

lobbyist and a PR consultant broke the law. This is not a widespread scandal that has lots of lobbyists caught up in breaking the 

law. It is one lobbyist. I think this is important to keep in mind 

as we debate the need for further reforms. 

In terms of rules and regulations, I should mention the American 

League of Lobbyists has its own Code of Ethics. This document, 

which I have attached as part of my testimony, is a source of great 

pride for our members. It is a voluntary code, but one that our 

members respect and live up to and value for the way it so clearly 

defines the boundaries of appropriate lobbying. It is a code that 

makes our profession stronger and better, and for the record, Mr. 

Abramoff is not and never was a member of ours. 

In terms of education and training for the profession, ALL has 

been working for the past 19 months in partnership with George 

Mason University’s New Century College on an ambitious new lobbying certification program. It can no longer be acceptable to just 

fill out the right forms and submit them on time in order to call 

yourself a lobbyist. We have to do better, and we will do better. We 

need standards to guide our profession and the work we do. We believe our new lobbying certification program will begin to set that 

standard. 

In addition, our lobbyist tool kit, which I have brought with me 

today, provides all lobbyists with valuable information on staying 

compliant in an ever-changing profession. We need to change attitudes throughout the entire legislative structure by making this 

education and training available to everyone, not just to lobbyists, 

but Members of Congress and their staffs, as well, to keep them 

up to speed on what is going on. 

Finally, if Congress believes reforms are necessary, we need to 

make sure that these reforms do not limit or impair anyone from 

exercising their guaranteed constitutional right to petition their 

government, even if that means using a lobbyist to do so. Our 

founding Fathers believed that the right to petition government 

was critical to an open democracy. That is just as vital in today’s 

environment as it was over 200 years ago. If reforms are needed, 

I believe we can get to those reforms without limiting a person’s 

right to petition their government. We hope Congress will agree 

with us. 

Because of what is at stake here, we should not be in a hurry 

to implement new reforms. We should take as much time as needed 

to ensure that any reforms are done right. I think the American 

people will understand and be better served if all work together to 

get this right the first time. 

49

Madam Chairman, we welcome the opportunity to work with you 

and your colleagues on this issue. We look forward to a process by 

which we will be able to submit the current LDA to a thoughtful 

and rigorous review and find ways to make it more effective, and 

we are confident that, working together, we will restore people’s 

faith in government and in the legislative process. We owe them 

no less. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity, and I am happy to address any questions you or anybody else may have today. Thank 

you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Wertheimer, you stated in your testimony that grassroots 

lobbying may well account for as much, if not more, of the funds 

spent to lobby Congress as direct lobbying expenditures, and we 

have indeed seen a growth of professional grassroots lobbying firms 

that do nothing else, and you have advocated disclosure for those 

firms. Do you think that organizations such as the National Right 

to Life Organization or NARAL on the other side should also be required to disclose when they have spent money to activate their 

grassroots members? 

Mr. WERTHEIMER. We have supported the provisions in the 

McCain-Lieberman bill, which basically focus this on the expenditures made to reach the public outside organizations. Those provisions deal with money spent on heavily paid for media campaigns, 

on computerized phone banking directed at the public. So we support the McCain-Lieberman provisions, and those provisions do not 

cover communications within an organization’s own membership. 

If I might just add a point here, we strongly do not believe that 

this is the problem caused by one man. We believe that this problem facing the Committee today was caused by one system, and it 

is a system that allows a lobbyist to do the following with money: 

Make a campaign contribution, hold a fundraiser, raise money for 

you, and that is why we propose strict new limits on what lobbyists 

can give and prohibition of lobbyists raising money for Members of 

Congress. The lobbyists can arrange trips for Members of Congress, 

arrange company planes for Members of Congress, pay for parties 

for Members of Congress, pay for meals and tickets to sporting 

events for Members of Congress, make contributions to foundations 

established or controlled by Members, finance retreats and conferences by Members. 

This is not about the right to petition. I think everyone agrees 

that everyone should have the right to petition. This is about the 

way money is used by lobbyists and their clients and the organizations they work for on Capitol Hill at the expense of the American 

people, and it shows up in these polls. It shows up in a rather astounding finding that two-thirds of the country would ban contributions from lobbyists and 90 percent would prevent lobbyists from 

giving members anything. Those concerns require bold reforms, 

and we very much hope this Committee will move forward in that 

light. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Miller, Mr. Samuel earlier mentioned 

that the AFL–CIO missed a filing deadline and no one noticed. 

They caught the error themselves. It underscores the point that 

Mr. Wertheimer and several other witnesses have made about the 

50

lack of enforcement for current requirements. Do you have any recommendations to improve the accountability, oversight, and enforcement? 

Mr. MILLER. First of all, I think this is the heart of the question 

that we are here debating right now. We don’t know if the current 

rules work or not because we don’t have any enforcement mechanism in place. The House and Senate, and even the Justice Department, they don’t have the financial and the human resources to undertake this right now. So until you settle that question, I think 

we are going to run into some of these problems and you are going 

to force people to self-police themselves. 

I mean, Jack Abramoff did get caught by the system. He got 

caught by other lobbyists who turned him over to a reporter. So the 

system did work in many regards, but right now we don’t have a 

system that works effectively. We have to find some sort of enforcement mechanism to handle that before we can even move forward. 

And the legislation and the ideas are nice, but until you address 

and fix that problem, it is going to be meaningless. I mean no disrespect by that, but that has to be the core of what you are trying 

to accomplish here. 

Chairman COLLINS. Do you have any enforcement mechanism 

that accompanies your Code of Conduct? Is there a self-regulatory 

organization aspect to it? 

Mr. MILLER. No. Our code is voluntary, but we do as an organization have the right to kick you out of the organization and not 

ask you back if you are found to have broken any of our Code of 

Ethics or any other rules or regulations. We are now implementing 

a new—again, it is voluntary, but a lobbying certification program 

through George Mason University’s New Century College. 

In my belief, we have to provide better education out there. It 

can no longer be the standard that you fill out the right forms and 

call yourself a lobbyist and you find clients to pay you. You have 

to know the rules, and I would venture to guess there are a lot of 

people out there, members, staff, and lobbyists, who don’t know the 

right rules. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Wertheimer, one final quick question for 

you, although I am sure we are going to be talking to both of you 

over the next few weeks. You heard the debate this morning on 

travel, and your testimony just now seemed to call for an outright 

ban on any privately sponsored travel. Do you think that an exception should be made for a public policy institute like the Aspen Institute? 

Mr. WERTHEIMER. Let me first, at the outset, note for the Committee’s information that Dick Clark is the Chairman of my Board. 

[Laughter.] 

I have worked with him for many years. He was a great leader 

in this Congress in the 1970s for campaign finance and ethics reforms, and he has devoted his life to public service. I think he is 

a great person. 

Our position is that your travel ought to be paid for by the public 

and that private-financed travel should stop. Now, the question has 

come up in different ways about writing exceptions to this provision. Writing narrow exceptions that work is a very difficult task. 

When the gift rules were written, travel was excepted. As it was 

51

written in as an exception, in theory, it was supposed to be contained. It got out of control. When the gift ban, or the limit to $50, 

was written, there was a little exception in there for a group who 

wanted to put on an event honoring a member, and we wind up 

with $250,000 parties paid for by lobbyists, companies at the National Conventions for single individuals or specific Members of 

Congress. So it becomes very hard to write specific exemptions. 

If this Committee looks at exemptions, obviously, we and the 

groups who are interested in this will look at it and will give you 

our response. But our basic view is that privately financed travel 

should stop and that it is hard to write exceptions here. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

I got a kick out of the very accurate point that Mr. Miller made 

that the Abramoff scandal was broken in the first instance not by 

any enforcement mechanism, but by other lobbyists who felt that 

Abramoff was taking their clients away. There is a certain market 

motivation that helped to break the story, and they called, I believe, Susan Schmidt at the Washington Post, and then Senator 

McCain did that extraordinary series of hearings he held. 

In this same regard, as you know, Mr. Miller, a lot of attention 

has been focused on the so-called K Street Project where Members 

of Congress apparently were pressuring lobbying firms to hire certain people of a particular party. I presume that people in your association, lobbyists, don’t like that. 

At least one of the bills, Senator Reid’s bill, makes an attempt 

to make it illegal for a member to take or withhold action in an 

attempt to influence a private employer’s hiring decisions for partisan reasons. What do you think about that? 

Mr. MILLER. We agree with you. I don’t think anybody—at least 

that I have talked to—is proud of some of the things that they hear 

about the K Street Project or any other project. I think both sides 

have similar types, or had similar types of projects in the past. 

They don’t have a place here in Washington, and I think if you can 

do something about them, yes, I think you would get our support. 

But the problem I think you get on some of these issues is you 

can’t really legislate ethics or morality and values. I think people 

have to be better accountable and more accountable to their profession and the standards that they are supposed to live by. I just 

don’t know how you make that effective other than say you can’t 

do it because you are never going to really have any—unless somebody writes it down, how are you going to prove that they did those 

types of projects? 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. Obviously, if two people have a conversation, you have a possibility for somebody to testify to what 

happened, and that is the challenge we have in legislating in this 

area. 

Let me ask you something else. Some of the bills ban gifts by lobbyists to Members of Congress. Others call for disclosure. Let me 

give you an opportunity to address that issue. If you take the position that there shouldn’t be a ban, why not? I will just say for the 

record that under the current law, as I understand it, lobbyists are 

limited to giving Members of Congress a gift that cannot be worth 

more than $50, and cumulatively during the year not more than 

52

$100, and gifts include meals and obviously would include tickets 

to sports events or whatever else. So if, in fact, you don’t support 

a ban on gifts, why not? 

Mr. MILLER. I think you have reasonable rules in place right 

now, and the question becomes, if you are able to buy somebody, 

whether it be a staffer or a Member of Congress, for a $50 meal 

or $100 worth of meals throughout the year, I think that says 

something about our system much more than what we are talking 

about here today. 

I don’t support banning gifts. I think they have a place in our 

system. Right now, if you go to any office—you all are very familiar—if somebody wants to talk to you or your staff, the offices are 

very crowded, phones are ringing, people are in and out, and sometimes you are meeting in the lobby, you are meeting in the hallway. You don’t have the time and the focus of people at times. By 

going to a lunch that may cost $50, you are having a little bit more 

time to sit down, have some real dialogue to talk about these 

issues. 

If you take that away and you ban it, there have been some 

newspaper articles that say they will just move it to the political 

side and make it fundraising events type of thing. I disagree with 

that. I think we need to allow for some sort of gift. The $100 is reasonable. We just need to figure out a way to make it enforceable. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. OK. Mr. Wertheimer, you and Mr. Miller 

both have talked about the need for greater enforcement. As I understand the status quo, lobbyists file their reports with the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House. You probably know 

more about this than I do, or Mr. Miller does. I gather there are 

a few staff members in each place that basically accept them, but 

there is not much beyond that in the status quo. Maybe I should 

ask you first if my understanding is right. In other words, are they 

open so the press can go or other organizations, other competitors 

can go and review them? 

Mr. WERTHEIMER. Our feeling is that both in lobbying reports 

filed with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate, 

with financial disclosure, with travel reports, the resources are not 

there to do more than accept them, and there are certainly not 

there to do serious oversight, monitoring, review, and that is part 

of a much larger oversight and enforcement issue in Congress that 

is a core question. We believe it is essential to deal with that. 

Where I would strongly disagree with Mr. Miller is we believe 

you should deal with both now. I don’t think there is any question 

that there are serious problems with the current rules and changes 

that need to be made. 

We have outlined a proposal for an Office of Public Integrity in 

the Congress——

Senator LIEBERMAN. Take a little time and talk about that. Senator Reid has an Office of Public Integrity in his proposal, but I 

don’t believe it has all the authority that your ‘‘six benchmarks’’ 

proposal has. So how would it work? 

Mr. WERTHEIMER. Here is what we think should be done. First, 

this office, which is in the Congress, should be nonpartisan, professional, independent, and headed by a publicly credible individual 

53

appointed by the Joint Leadership. That is a tough assignment, 

and it is critical. 

But this office should have the following responsibilities. It 

should be able to receive, monitor, and oversee reports filed by 

members and filed by lobbyists. It should be the office that advises 

and provides you advance information—members, staff, lobbyists—

on how to comply with the law. 

It should have the ability to conduct non-frivolous ethics investigations, to respond to complaints filed by members or outsiders, 

or own its own grounds to pursue investigations as to whether ethics violations have occurred in either the House or Senate. If it concludes that there is sufficient information that this matter should 

go forward, it would then switch to the Ethics Committees in the 

sense that this office would present the cases to the Ethics Committees, which would serve as the judges here. The Ethics Committee would decide whether violations had occurred and whether 

the matter should then go forward to the full body for action and 

sanctions. 

While the Ethics Committees are the judges, this process would 

allow in an independent way matters to go forward sufficiently so 

they will be tested and determined when serious ethics violations 

occur. Right now, and it has been this way forever, it is very hard 

to serve on the Ethics Committee. It is a terrible job. You have to 

judge your peers. There is built-in inherent resistance to moving 

forward with problems, but Ethics Committees have dealt with fundamental problems—Koreagate and ABSCAM in the 1970s, the 

Keating Five affair in the 1980s. I would point out that with everything that has happened in the Abramoff matter, there is no public 

information that tells us that any investigation has been conducted 

to date by either Ethics Committee. 

So the Ethics Committees can deal with tough problems, but that 

is not the inclination and that is why you need a body that is going 

to take a look at these things, and if you find serious problems, you 

bring them to the Ethics Committees to judge. They can’t be 

blocked at the outset. 

And the last part of this responsibility would be to refer problems with lobbyists and lobbying reports to the Justice Department, which currently has civil enforcement responsibilities but 

doesn’t review any of these reports. 

The one additional item I would add, right now, all of the responsibility for complying with some of these rules rests on members. 

If a lobbyist provides $500 to pay for a meal, the lobbyist isn’t violating anything. You are violating it as a member. We think that 

in situations like travel and gifts that responsibilities and prohibitions have to be placed on the lobbyists as well as the members. 

I think this will gain the attention of the lobbyists and be a very 

strong incentive for lobbyists to make sure they comply with these 

rules as well as members. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. That is a very serious proposal which deserves consideration. 

Mr. WERTHEIMER. And we would, if I could just add, like to submit some more information to this Committee on the proposal. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Please. 

Mr. MILLER. Senator Lieberman, can I just add to that point? 

54

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes, go right ahead. 

Mr. MILLER. Or Madam Chairman, can I add to that point? We 

don’t disagree with my colleague over here. One of the things that 

we have thrown out there and discussed earlier this week was why 

not maybe possibly look at GAO taking this over and undertaking 

this project. If there is some credibility to having them do it, maybe 

it is an option for you all to look at. 

If you all are looking to make some real reforms right now that 

are fast and easy to do, two steps. We are not opposed to transparency. Some say that we don’t want to file more than twice a 

year. We don’t have a problem doing it. What we have a problem 

with is the burdensome and cumbersome processes that we have. 

If the House and Senate could come up with one system, electronic 

filing system, this would make it so much easier for us to do and 

the transparency would be immediate for the general public. So if 

you could fix that problem, that is something that should be easy 

enough to do and something the general public, I think, would be 

very happy with. 

The other thing right now, a second proposal is we hear a lot of 

numbers about how many registered lobbyists there are in this 

town, and I don’t think anybody actually has the right number. I 

was told right before this hearing by a company that tracks that 

that there are 11,500 registered lobbyists. We heard as high as 

35,000. I think if you talk to the folks in the Senate, they will tell 

you that if you are a woman and you get married and you change 

your name, you are in there twice because they don’t take your 

maiden name out. If you are retired, you are still kept in the database. And if you are deceased, you are still kept in the database. 

So if we could get a better, accurate reflection of how many lobbyists there truly are in this town, I think we wouldn’t have to throw 

so many different numbers around. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Miller, Mr. Wertheimer. 

Thanks for still being in the fight. 

Mr. WERTHEIMER. Thanks very much for this opportunity. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you both. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. I want to thank all of our witnesses for their contributions today. We do look forward to working 

further with you to develop legislative reforms. We welcome any 

additional information to be submitted to the record and to the 

Committee for consideration, not only by our witnesses today but 

by those who didn’t have the opportunity to testify today. The hearing record will remain open for 15 days. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(55)

A P P E N D I X 


26750.001
56


26750.002
57


26750.003
58


26750.004
59


26750.005
60


26750.006
61


26750.007
62


26750.008
63


26750.009
64


26750.010
65


26750.011
66


26750.012
67


26750.013
68


26750.014
69


26750.015
70


26750.016
71


26750.017
72


26750.018
73


26750.019
74


26750.020
75


26750.021
76


26750.022
77


26750.023
78


26750.024
79


26750.025
80


26750.026
81


26750.027
82


26750.028
83


26750.029
84


26750.030
85


26750.031
86


26750.032
87


26750.033
88


26750.034
89


26750.035
90


26750.036
91


26750.037
92


26750.038
93


26750.039
94


26750.040
95


26750.041
96


26750.042
97


26750.043
98


26750.087
99


26750.088
100


26750.044
101


26750.045
102


26750.046
103


26750.047
104


26750.048
105


26750.049
106


26750.050
107


26750.051
108


26750.052
109


26750.053
110


26750.054
111


26750.055
112


26750.056
113


26750.057
114


26750.058
115


26750.059
116


26750.060
117


26750.061
118


26750.062
119


26750.063
120


26750.064
121


26750.065
122


26750.066
123


26750.067
124


26750.068
125


26750.069
126


26750.070
127


26750.071
128


26750.072
129


26750.073
130


26750.074
131


26750.075
132


26750.076
133


26750.077
134


26750.078
135


26750.079
136


26750.080
137


26750.081
138


26750.082
139


26750.083
140


26750.084
141


26750.085
142

Æ


26750.086