Russ Feingold: “When I refer to the $75 example, it is under the Johnston substitute. The Levin substitute would only allow $20. Since…”

“When I refer to the $75 example, it is under the Johnston substitute. The Levin substitute would only allow $20. Since there is a double strategy going on here, at one point people want to say this is a big deal, it is going to be hard to deal with and involves very substantial change. On the other hand, the argument is made this is a trivial matter dealing with donuts and coffee cups. It cannot be very trivial when various restauranteurs in Washington are begging for an opportunity to meet with me because this change, the change that the Levin substitute proposes, apparently would destroy their base. You cannot have it both ways. It cannot be both trivial and destructive of businesses in Washington. The fact is that there must be enough of this kind of activity that these people who run these restaurants feel that their businesses would be threatened. So I just simply conclude by saying it is unfortunate we even have to have this debate. What is unfortunate is that the Members who are expressing concerns about this have not done anything wrong. I do not think that has been said enough. But there is an opportunity to turn the page, to realize that most people in this country cannot afford these kinds of things and that they think it is wrong for us to receive a salary and then, on top of that, be able to get expensive trips and lunches and so on.”