McConnell Statement on Lobby Reform Bill
August 2, 2007
‘The earmarks provision we passed unanimously in January, and which was supported by every single Democrat in the Senate, was strong; the earmarks provision in this bill is not’
Washington, DC – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following comments (as prepared) Thursday on the Senate floor regarding S. 1, The Ethics Reform Bill:
“More than six months after the Senate passed its own Lobby Reform Bill, we’re now being asked to vote on a Democrat-written alternative that promises to be less effective, but in some ways stronger than current law.
“I was a co-sponsor of the original version, and its passage by an overwhelming vote of 96-2 in January marked an early high point of bipartisanship in this session — and it was an unmistakable sign of the strength of that original bill.
“Americans were right to be outraged by the scandals that surfaced last year, they’re right to hold their lawmakers to the highest standard of conduct, and passing this bill will send a strong and, I think, necessary signal that the Senate has recommitted itself to that trust.
“As I said, in some key areas, this bill is an improvement over the status quo. But this isn’t the bill I would have written — and it would have benefited a lot from Republican input.
“The earmarks provision we passed unanimously in January, and which was supported by every single Democrat in the Senate, was strong; the earmarks provision in this bill is not.
“And several new provisions make hardly any sense at all.
My largest concern here is what we’re doing to our own staff. It’s unclear to me why, in this bill, we treat House staff more leniently than our most trusted advisors in the Senate, or even those in the executive branch. I find this provision particularly offensive.
“The gift ban and new travel restrictions are tricky and vague by extending the ban to not just lobbyists, but also to any entities that employ or retain them. Does that mean I have to refuse the key to a city, since cities have their own lobbyists, and mayors belong to associations that employ and retain them?
“How about the 22-year old staff assistant who has to wait tables to make ends meet? What happens when they wait on a lobbyist, or someone who works for an organization that retains one? Do they have to refuse their tips?
“You get the drift.
“This provision is bound to create problems for well-intentioned members and staff, and I look to the Ethics Committee to provide some clarity to this rather murky provision.
“The new rule on charter flights is seriously deficient. Members who are rich enough, or have family members rich enough to own their own planes have nothing to worry about. Everybody else does.
“Also, presidents who are required by the Secret Service to travel on Air Force One will have to reimburse the government at the full charter rate — roughly $400,000 per hour — to use it for campaign travel. That not only means the end of presidential fundraisers outside Washington for Democrats and Republicans. It means the end of president’s doing fundraisers for members outside of D.C. We’d have to have a $5 million fundraiser just to pay for the trip.
“Clearly this was not the intent of the authors of this bill. But it will be an effect of what they’ve written. I know some members in particular who might be surprised to learn about this.
“Every one of these weaknesses would have been improved with Republican input, but we were unable to do so because there was no conference.
“I assure you that we’ll return to the earmarks provision. This bill isn’t nearly as tough as it would have been on earmarks if Republicans had been involved in writing it. But weighing the good and the bad, many provisions are stronger than current law.
“I will support its passage.”
###
