[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     CONGRESSIONAL GIFTS REFORM ACT

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, on March 17, by unanimous consent, the 
Senate agreed to a procedure for the disposition of S. 1935, the gift 
ban bill. That agreement, identified as Calendar Order No. 419, is 
printed on page 2 of the Senate's Calendar of Business today. It 
provides that after consultation with the Republican leader, the 
majority leader is authorized to turn to the consideration of that bill 
no later than the close of business on Wednesday, May 4, 1994.
  I have consulted with the Republican leader, and with several of the 
Senators with a direct interest in this legislation, and pursuant to 
that authority, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the consideration of S. 1935.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill 
(S. 1935) to prohibit lobbyists and their clients from providing to 
legislative branch officials certain gifts, meals, entertainment, 
reimbursements, or loans and to place limits on and require disclosure 
by lobbyists of certain expenditures, which had been reported from the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs, with an amendment to strike all 
after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Gifts Reform 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE RULES.

       Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to 
     read as follows:

                              ``RULE XXXV

                                ``gifts

       ``1. (a) No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate, or 
     the spouse or dependent thereof, shall knowingly accept--
       ``(1) any gift provided directly or indirectly by a person 
     registered as a lobbyist or a foreign agent under the Federal 
     Regulation of Lobbying Act, the Foreign Agents Registration 
     Act, or any successor statute;
       ``(2) any gift having a value of $20 or more from any other 
     person; or
       ``(3) gifts having a value of less than $20 from the same 
     or different sources on a basis so frequent that a reasonable 
     person would be led to believe the Member, officer, or 
     employee is using his public office for private gain.
       ``(b) For the purpose of this rule, the term `gift' means 
     any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, 
     loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value. The 
     term includes gifts of services, training, transportation, 
     lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind, by purchase of 
     a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement after the 
     expense has been incurred.
       ``(c)(1) The following items are gifts subject to the 
     restrictions in subparagraph (a)--
       ``(A) a financial contribution or an expenditure relating 
     to a conference, retreat, or similar event for or on behalf 
     of Members, officers, or employees; and
       ``(B) a charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made in lieu of 
     an honorarium.
       ``(2) The following items are subject to the restrictions 
     in subparagraph (a)(1)--
       ``(A) an item provided by a lobbyist or a foreign agent 
     which is paid for, charged to, or reimbursed by a client of 
     such lobbyist or foreign agent;
       ``(B) an item provided by a lobbyist or a foreign agent to 
     an entity that is maintained or controlled by a Member, 
     officer, or employee;
       ``(C) a charitable contribution made on the basis of a 
     designation, recommendation, or other specification made to a 
     lobbyist or a foreign agent by a Member, officer, or 
     employee; and
       ``(D) a contribution and other payment by a lobbyist or 
     foreign agent to a legal expense fund established for the 
     benefit of a Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(d) The following items are not gifts subject to the 
     restrictions in subparagraph (a):
       ``(1) Any item for which the Member, officer, or employee 
     pays the market value.
       ``(2) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully made 
     under that Act.
       ``(3) Anything provided under circumstances that clearly 
     indicate, in accordance with paragraph 2(a), that it is 
     provided for a nonbusiness purpose and is motivated by a 
     family relationship or personal friendship and not by the 
     position of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(4) Items which are not used and which are promptly 
     returned to the donor.
       ``(5) A food or refreshment item of minimal value, such as 
     a soft drink, coffee, or doughnut offered other than as part 
     of a meal.
       ``(6) Benefits resulting from the business or employment 
     activities of the spouse of a Member, officer, or employee, 
     if such benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of 
     the official position of such Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(7) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued 
     participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan 
     maintained by a former employer.
       ``(8) Informational materials that are sent to the office 
     of the Member, officer, or employee in the form of books, 
     articles, periodicals, other written materials, audio tapes, 
     videotapes, or other forms of communication.
       ``(e) The restrictions in clauses (2) and (3) of 
     subparagraph (a) shall not apply to the following:
       ``(1) Meals, lodging, and other benefits--
       ``(A) resulting from the outside business or employment 
     activities of the Member, officer, or employee (or other 
     outside activities that are not connected to the duties of 
     the Member, officer, or employee as an officeholder), if such 
     benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of the 
     official position of the Member, officer, or employee; or
       ``(B) customarily provided by a prospective employer in 
     connection with bona fide employment discussions.
       ``(2) Awards or prizes which are given to competitors in 
     contests or events open to the public, including random 
     drawings.
       ``(3) Honorary degrees and other bona fide awards presented 
     in recognition of public service and available to the general 
     public (and associated meals and entertainment provided in 
     the presentation of such degrees and awards).
       ``(4) Donations of products from the State that the Member 
     represents that are intended primarily for promotional 
     purposes, such as display or free distribution, and are of 
     minimal value to any individual recipient.
       ``(5) Meals and entertainment provided to a Member or an 
     employee of a Member in the Member's home State, subject to 
     reasonable limitations, to be established by the Committee on 
     Rules and Administration.
       ``(6) Food and attendance provided at an event sponsored by 
     a political organization described in section 527(e) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(7) Training provided to a Member, officer, or employee, 
     if such training is in the interest of the Senate.
       ``(8) Bequests, inheritances, and other transfers at death.
       ``(9) Any item, the receipt of which is authorized by the 
     Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act, the Mutual Education and 
     Cultural Exchange Act, or any other statute.
       ``(10) Anything which is paid for by the Government or 
     secured by the Government under a Government contract.
       ``(11) A gift of personal hospitality of an individual, as 
     defined in section 109(14) of the Ethics in Government Act.
       ``(12) Free attendance at an event permitted pursuant to 
     paragraph 2(b).
       ``(13) Opportunities and benefits which are--
       ``(A) available to the public or to a class consisting of 
     all Federal employees, whether or not restricted on the basis 
     of geographic consideration;
       ``(B) offered to members of a group or class in which 
     membership is unrelated to congressional employment;
       ``(C) offered to members of an organization, such as an 
     employees' association or congressional credit union, in 
     which membership is related to congressional employment and 
     similar opportunities are available to large segments of the 
     public through organizations of similar size;
       ``(D) offered to any group or class that is not defined in 
     a manner that specifically discriminates among Government 
     employees on the basis of branch of Government or type of 
     responsibility, or on a basis that favors those of higher 
     rank or rate of pay;
       ``(E) in the form of loans from banks and other financial 
     institutions on terms generally available to the public; or
       ``(F) in the form of reduced membership or other fees for 
     participation in organization activities offered to all 
     Government employees by professional organizations if the 
     only restrictions on membership relate to professional 
     qualifications.
       ``2. (a)(1) In determining if the giving of an item is 
     motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship, at 
     least the following factors shall be considered:
       ``(A) The history of the relationship between the 
     individual giving the item and the individual receiving the 
     item, including whether or not items have previously been 
     exchanged by such individuals.
       ``(B) Whether the item was purchased by the individual who 
     gave the item.
       ``(C) Whether the individual who gave the item also at the 
     same time gave the same or similar item to other Members, 
     officers, or employees.
       ``(2) The giving of an item shall not be considered to be 
     motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship if 
     the family member or friend seeks--
       ``(A) to deduct the value of such item as a business 
     expense on the family member's or friend's Federal income tax 
     return; or
       ``(B) reimbursement from--
       ``(i) a lobbyist or foreign agent required to register 
     under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act, or any successor statute; or
       ``(ii) a client of a lobbyist or foreign agent described in 
     division (i).
       ``(b)(1) Except as prohibited by paragraph 1(a)(1) a 
     Member, officer, or employee may accept an offer of free 
     attendance at a widely attended convention, conference, 
     symposium, forum, panel discussion, dinner, reception, or 
     similar event, if--
       ``(A) the Member, officer, or employee participates in the 
     event as a speaker or a panel participant, by presenting 
     information related to Congress or matters before Congress, 
     or by performing a ceremonial function appropriate to his or 
     her official position; or
       ``(B) attendance of the event is appropriate to the 
     performance of the official duties of the Member, officer, or 
     employee.
       ``(2) A Member, officer, or employee who attends an event 
     described in clause (1) of this subparagraph may accept--
       ``(A) a sponsor's unsolicited offer of free attendance at 
     the event for an accompanying spouse if others in attendance 
     will generally be accompanied by spouses or if such 
     attendance is appropriate to assist in the representation of 
     the Senate; and
       ``(B) transportation and lodging in connection with the 
     event if authorized in accordance with paragraph 3.
       ``(3) Except as prohibited by paragraph 1(a)(1), a Member, 
     officer, or employee, or the spouse or dependent thereof, may 
     accept a sponsor's unsolicited offer of free attendance at a 
     charity event in which the Member, officer, or employee is a 
     participant. Reimbursement for transportation and lodging may 
     not be accepted in connection with the event.
       ``(4) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `free 
     attendance' may include waiver of all or part of a conference 
     or other fee or the provision of food, refreshment, 
     entertainment, and instructional materials furnished to all 
     attendees as an integral part of the event. The term does not 
     include entertainment collateral to the event or meals taken 
     other than in a group setting with all or substantially all 
     other attendees.
       ``(c) For the purpose of this rule--
       ``(1) The term `client' means any person who employs or 
     retains a lobbyist or a foreign agent to appear or work on 
     such person's behalf.
       ``(2) The term `market value', when applied to a gift means 
     the retail cost a person would incur to purchase the gift. 
     The market value of a gift of a ticket entitling the holder 
     to food, refreshments, or entertainment is the retail cost of 
     similar food, refreshments, or entertainment.
       ``3. (a)(1) Except as prohibited by paragraph 1(a)(1), a 
     reimbursement (including payment in kind) to a Member, 
     officer, or employee for necessary transportation, lodging 
     and related expenses for travel to a meeting, speaking 
     engagement, factfinding trip or similar event in connection 
     with the duties of the Member, officer, or employee as an 
     officeholder shall be deemed to be a reimbursement to the 
     Senate and not a gift prohibited by paragraph 1, if the 
     Member, officer, or employee receives advance authorization 
     to accept reimbursement and discloses the expenses reimbursed 
     or to be reimbursed and the authorization through the 
     Secretary of the Senate as soon as practicable after the 
     travel is completed.
       ``(2) Events, the activities of which are substantially 
     recreational in nature, shall not be considered to be in 
     connection with the duties of a Member, officer, or employee 
     as an officeholder.
       ``(b) Each advance authorization to accept reimbursement 
     shall be signed by the appropriate Member or committee 
     chairman and shall include--
       ``(1) the name of the Member, officer, or employee;
       ``(2) the name of the person who will make the 
     reimbursement;
       ``(3) the time, place, and purpose of the travel; and
       ``(4) a determination that the travel is in connection with 
     the duties of the Member, officer, or employee as an 
     officeholder and would not create the appearance that the 
     Member, officer, or employee is using public office for 
     private gain.
       ``(c) Each disclosure of expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed shall be signed by the appropriate Member or 
     committee chairman and shall include--
       ``(1) total transportation expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed;
       ``(2) total lodging expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed;
       ``(3) disclosure of any other expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed (with the exception of any items that may properly 
     be accepted pursuant to clauses (1) and (2)); and
       ``(4) a determination that all such expenses are necessary 
     transportation, lodging, and related expenses as defined in 
     this paragraph.
       ``(d) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `necessary transportation, lodging, and related expenses'--
       ``(1) includes reasonable expenses that are necessary for 
     travel for a period that may not exceed 3 days exclusive of 
     traveltime within the United States or 7 days exclusive of 
     traveltime outside of the United States unless approved in 
     advance by the Ethics Committee;
       ``(2) is limited to expenditures for transportation, 
     lodging, conference fees and materials, and meals offered to 
     all attendees as an integral part of the event, including 
     reimbursement for necessary transportation, whether or not 
     such transportation occurs within the periods described in 
     clause (1); and
       ``(3) does not include expenditures for recreational 
     activities, or entertainment other than that provided to all 
     attendees as an integral part of the event.
       ``(e) The Secretary of the Senate shall--
       ``(1) make available to the public all advance 
     authorizations and disclosures of reimbursement filed 
     pursuant to subparagraph (a) as soon as possible after they 
     are filed; and
       ``(2) publish an annual report summarizing (by Member, 
     officer, or employee) travel expenses that are reimbursed 
     pursuant to this paragraph and aggregate more than $250 from 
     any one source.
       ``4. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, 
     a Member, officer, or employee of the Senate may participate 
     in a program, the principal objective of which is 
     educational, sponsored by a foreign government or a foreign 
     educational or charitable organization involving travel to a 
     foreign country paid for by that foreign government 
     organization if such participation is not in violation of any 
     law and if the appropriate Member or committee chairman has 
     determined that participation in such program is in the 
     interests of the Senate and the United States.
       ``(b) Any Member who accepts an invitation to participate 
     in any such program shall notify the Secretary of the Senate 
     in writing of his acceptance. A Member shall also notify the 
     Secretary in writing whenever he has permitted any officer or 
     employee whom he supervises (within the meaning of paragraph 
     11 of rule XXXVII) to participate in any such program. The 
     Secretary shall place in the Congressional Record a list of 
     all individuals participating; the supervisors of such 
     individuals, where applicable; and the nature and itinerary 
     of such program with participation in a program permitted 
     under subparagraph (a) if such funds are not used for 
     necessary food, lodging, transportation, and related expenses 
     of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``5. The Committee on Rules and Administration is 
     authorized to adjust the $20 gift limit established in 
     paragraph 1 on a periodic basis, to the extent necessary to 
     adjust for inflation.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSE RULES.

       Clause 4 of Rule XLIII of the House of Representatives is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``4. (a)(1) No Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
     Representatives, or the spouse or dependent thereof, shall 
     knowingly accept--
       ``(A) any gift provided directly or indirectly by a person 
     registered as a lobbyist or a foreign agent under the Federal 
     Regulation of Lobbying Act, the Foreign Agents Registration 
     Act, or any successor statute;
       ``(B) any gift having a value of $20 or more from any other 
     person; or
       ``(C) gifts having a value of less than $20 from the same 
     or different sources on a basis so frequent that a reasonable 
     person would be led to believe the Member, officer, or 
     employee is using his public office for private gain.
       ``(2) For the purpose of this clause, the term `gift' means 
     any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, 
     loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value. The 
     term includes gifts of services, training, transportation, 
     lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind, by purchase of 
     a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement after the 
     expense has been incurred.
       ``(3)(A) The following items are gifts subject to the 
     restrictions in subparagraph (1)--
       ``(i) a financial contribution or an expenditure relating 
     to a conference, retreat, or similar event for or on behalf 
     of Members, officers, or employees; and
       ``(ii) a charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made in lieu of 
     an honorarium.
       ``(B) The following items are subject to the restrictions 
     in subparagraph (1)(A)--
       ``(i) an item provided by a lobbyist or a foreign agent 
     which is paid for, charged to, or reimbursed by a client of 
     such lobbyist or foreign agent;
       ``(ii) an item provided by a lobbyist or a foreign agent to 
     an entity that is maintained or controlled by a Member, 
     officer, or employee;
       ``(iii) a charitable contribution made on the basis of a 
     designation, recommendation, or other specification made to a 
     lobbyist or a foreign agent by a Member, officer, or 
     employee; and
       ``(iv) a contribution and other payment by a lobbyist or 
     foreign agent to a legal expense fund established for the 
     benefit of a Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(4) The following items are not gifts subject to the 
     restrictions in subparagraph (1):
       ``(A) Any item for which the Member, officer, or employee 
     pays the market value.
       ``(B) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully made 
     under that Act.
       ``(C) Anything provided under circumstances that clearly 
     indicate, in accordance with paragraph (b)(1), that it is 
     provided for a nonbusiness purpose and is motivated by a 
     family relationship or personal friendship and not by the 
     position of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(D) Items which are not used and which are promptly 
     returned to the donor.
       ``(E) A food or refreshment item of minimal value, such as 
     a soft drink, coffee, or doughnut offered other than as part 
     of a meal.
       ``(F) Benefits resulting from the business or employment 
     activities of the spouse of a Member, officer, or employee, 
     if such benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of 
     the official position of such Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(G) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued 
     participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan 
     maintained by a former employer.
       ``(H) Informational materials that are sent to the office 
     of the Member, officer, or employee in the form of books, 
     articles, periodicals, other written materials, audio tapes, 
     videotapes, or other forms of communication.
       ``(5) The restrictions in clauses (B) and (C) of 
     subparagraph (1) shall not apply to the following:
       ``(A) Meals, lodging, and other benefits--
       ``(i) resulting from the outside business or employment 
     activities of the Member, officer, or employee (or other 
     outside activities that are not connected to the duties of 
     the Member, officer, or employee as an officeholder), if such 
     benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of the 
     official position of the Member, officer, or employee; or
       ``(ii) customarily provided by a prospective employer in 
     connection with bona fide employment discussions.
       ``(B) Awards or prizes which are given to competitors in 
     contests or events open to the public, including random 
     drawings.
       ``(C) Honorary degrees and other bona fide awards presented 
     in recognition of public service and available to the general 
     public (and associated meals and entertainment provided in 
     the presentation of such degrees and awards).
       ``(D) Donations of products from the State that the Member 
     represents that are intended primarily for promotional 
     purposes, such as display or free distribution, and are of 
     minimal value to any individual recipient.
       ``(E) Meals and entertainment provided to a Member or an 
     employee of a Member in the Member's home State having, 
     subject to reasonable limitations, to be established by the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration.
       ``(F) Food and attendance provided at an event sponsored by 
     a political organization described in section 527(e) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(G) Training provided to a Member, officer, or employee, 
     if such training is in the interest of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(H) Bequests, inheritances, and other transfers at death.
       ``(I) Any item, the receipt of which is authorized by the 
     Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act, the Mutual Education and 
     Cultural Exchange Act, or any other statute.
       ``(J) Anything which is paid for by the Government or 
     secured by the Government under a Government contract.
       ``(K) A gift of personal hospitality of an individual, as 
     defined in section 109(14) of the Ethics in Government Act.
       ``(L) Free attendance at an event permitted pursuant to 
     paragraph (b)(1).
       ``(M) Opportunities and benefits which are--
       ``(i) available to the public or to a class consisting of 
     all Federal employees, whether or not restricted on the basis 
     of geographic consideration;
       ``(ii) offered to members of a group or class in which 
     membership is unrelated to congressional employment;
       ``(iii) offered to members of an organization, such as an 
     employees' association or congressional credit union, in 
     which membership is related to congressional employment and 
     similar opportunities are available to large segments of the 
     public through organizations of similar size;
       ``(iv) offered to any group or class that is not defined in 
     a manner that specifically discriminates among Government 
     employees on the basis of branch of Government or type of 
     responsibility, or on a basis that favors those of higher 
     rank or rate of pay;
       ``(v) in the form of loans from banks and other financial 
     institutions on terms generally available to the public; or
       ``(vi) in the form of reduced membership or other fees for 
     participation in organization activities offered to all 
     Government employees by professional organizations if the 
     only restrictions on membership relate to professional 
     qualifications.
       ``(b)(1)(A) In determining if the giving of an item is 
     motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship, at 
     least the following factors shall be considered:
       ``(i) The history of the relationship between the 
     individual giving the item and the individual receiving the 
     item, including whether or not items have previously been 
     exchanged by such individuals.
       ``(ii) Whether the item was purchased by the individual who 
     gave the item.
       ``(iii) Whether the individual who gave the item also at 
     the same time gave the same or similar item to other Members, 
     officers, or employees.
       ``(B) The giving of an item shall not be considered to be 
     motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship if 
     the family member or friend seeks--
       ``(i) to deduct the value of such item as a business 
     expense on the family member's or friend's Federal income tax 
     return; or
       ``(ii) reimbursement from--
       ``(I) a lobbyist or foreign agent required to register 
     under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act, or any successor statute; or
       ``(II) a client of a lobbyist or foreign agent described in 
     division (i).
       ``(2)(A) Except as prohibited by paragraph (a)(1)(A) a 
     Member, officer, or employee may accept an offer of free 
     attendance at a widely attended convention, conference, 
     symposium, forum, panel discussion, dinner, reception, or 
     similar event, if--
       ``(i) the Member, officer, or employee participates in the 
     event as a speaker or a panel participant, by presenting 
     information related to Congress or matters before Congress, 
     or by performing a ceremonial function appropriate to his or 
     her official position; or
       ``(ii) attendance of the event is appropriate to the 
     performance of the official duties of the Member, officer, or 
     employee.
       ``(B) A Member, officer, or employee who attends an event 
     described in clause (A) of this subparagraph may accept--
       ``(i) a sponsor's unsolicited offer of free attendance at 
     the event for an accompanying spouse if others in attendance 
     will generally be accompanied by spouses or if such 
     attendance is appropriate to assist in the representation of 
     the House of Representatives; and
       ``(ii) transportation and lodging in connection with the 
     event if authorized in accordance with paragraph (c).
       ``(C) Except as prohibited by paragraph (a)(1)(A), a 
     Member, officer, or employee, or the spouse or dependent 
     thereof, may accept a sponsor's unsolicited offer of free 
     attendance at a charity event in which the Member, officer, 
     or employee is a participant. Reimbursement for 
     transportation and lodging may not be accepted in connection 
     with the event.
       ``(d) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `free 
     attendance' may include waiver of all or part of a conference 
     or other fee or the provision of food, refreshment, 
     entertainment, and instructional materials furnished to all 
     attendees as an integral part of the event. The term does not 
     include entertainment collateral to the event or meals taken 
     other than in a group setting with all or substantially all 
     other attendees.
       ``(3) For the purpose of this clause--
       ``(A) The term `client' means any person who employs or 
     retains a lobbyist or a foreign agent to appear or work on 
     such person's behalf.
       ``(B) The term `market value', when applied to a gift means 
     the retail cost a person would incur to purchase the gift. 
     The market value of a gift of a ticket entitling the holder 
     to food, refreshments, or entertainment is the retail cost of 
     similar food, refreshments, or entertainment.
       ``(c)(1)(A) Except as prohibited by paragraph (a)(1)(A), a 
     reimbursement (including payment in kind) to a Member, 
     officer, or employee for necessary transportation, lodging 
     and related expenses for travel to a meeting, speaking 
     engagement, factfinding trip or similar event in connection 
     with the duties of the Member, officer, or employee as an 
     officeholder shall be deemed to be a reimbursement to the 
     House of Representatives and not a gift prohibited by 
     paragraph (a), if the Member, officer, or employee receives 
     advance authorization to accept reimbursement and discloses 
     the expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed and the 
     authorization through the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives as soon as practicable after the travel is 
     completed.
       ``(B) Events, the activities of which are substantially 
     recreational in nature, shall not be considered to be in 
     connection with the duties of a Member, officer, or employee 
     as an officeholder.
       ``(2) Each advance authorization to accept reimbursement 
     shall be signed by the appropriate Member or committee 
     chairman and shall include--
       ``(A) the name of the Member, officer, or employee;
       ``(B) the name of the person who will make the 
     reimbursement;
       ``(C) the time, place, and purpose of the travel; and
       ``(D) a determination that the travel is in connection with 
     the duties of the Member, officer, or employee as an 
     officeholder and would not create the appearance that the 
     Member, officer, or employee is using public office for 
     private gain.
       ``(3) Each disclosure of expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed shall be signed by the appropriate Member or 
     committee chairman and shall include--
       ``(A) total transportation expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed;
       ``(B) total lodging expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed;
       ``(C) disclosure of any other expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed (with the exception of any items that may properly 
     be accepted pursuant to clauses (A) and (B)); and
       ``(D) a determination that all such expenses are necessary 
     transportation, lodging, and related expenses as defined in 
     this paragraph.
       ``(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `necessary transportation, lodging, and related expenses'--
       ``(A) includes reasonable expenses that are necessary for 
     travel for a period that may not exceed 3 days exclusive of 
     traveltime within the United States or 7 days exclusive of 
     traveltime outside of the United States unless approved in 
     advance by the Ethics Committee;
       ``(B) is limited to expenditures for transportation, 
     lodging, conference fees and materials, and meals offered to 
     all attendees as an integral part of the event, including 
     reimbursement for necessary transportation, whether or not 
     such transportation occurs within the periods described in 
     clause (1); and
       ``(C) does not include expenditures for recreational 
     activities, or entertainment other than that provided to all 
     attendees as an integral part of the event.
       ``(5) The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall--
       ``(A) make available to the public all advance 
     authorizations and disclosures of reimbursement filed 
     pursuant to subparagraph (1) as soon as possible after they 
     are filed; and
       ``(B) publish an annual report summarizing (by Member, 
     officer, or employee) travel expenses that are reimbursed 
     pursuant to this paragraph and aggregate more than $250 from 
     any one source.
       ``(d)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     clause, a Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
     Representatives may participate in a program, the principal 
     objective of which is educational, sponsored by a foreign 
     government or a foreign educational or charitable 
     organization involving travel to a foreign country paid for 
     by that foreign government organization if such participation 
     is not in violation of any law and if the appropriate Member 
     or committee chairman has determined that participation in 
     such program is in the interests of the House of 
     Representatives and the United States.
       ``(2) Any Member who accepts an invitation to participate 
     in any such program shall notify the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives in writing of his acceptance. A Member shall 
     also notify the a Clerk in writing whenever he has permitted 
     any officer or employee whom he supervises to participate in 
     any such program. The Clerk shall place in the Congressional 
     Record a list of all individuals participating; the 
     supervisors of such individuals, where applicable; and the 
     nature and itinerary of such program.
       ``(3) No Member, officer, or employee may accept funds in 
     connection with participation in a program permitted under 
     subparagraph (a) if such funds are not used for necessary 
     food, lodging, transportation, and related expenses of the 
     Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(e) The Committee on House Administration is authorized 
     to adjust the $20 gift limit established in paragraph (a) on 
     a periodic basis, to the extent necessary to adjust for 
     inflation.''.

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT.

       Section 102(a)(2)(A) of the Ethics in Government Act (5 
     U.S.C. App. 6, section 102), is amended by--
       (1) inserting a dash after ``and the value of'';
       (2) striking ``all gifts aggregating'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) all gifts aggregating'';
       (3) striking the period at the end of the subparagraph and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) all gifts, other than food, lodging, or 
     entertainment received as personal hospitality of an 
     individual, having a value of $20 or more that are--
       ``(I) provided by a person required to register under the 
     Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act, or any successor Act; and
       ``(II) would be prohibited by section 7353 of title 5, 
     United States Code, but for a personal friendship exception 
     contained in implementing rules and regulations issued 
     pursuant to in subsection (b)(1) of such section.''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become 
     effective on January 1, 1995.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, Senator Levin, who is the principal 
author of the legislation and the subcommittee chairman on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, will be managing the bill for the 
majority. Senator Cohen, who is the ranking member of the subcommittee 
and has also been very active in this legislative area, will be 
managing for the Republicans.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 2 years ago, I introduced a bill to close 
loopholes in the lobbying registration laws and to ensure that the 
public has complete and accurate information about who is being paid 
how much to lobby Congress and the executive branch and on what issues.
  That bill, the Lobbying Disclosure Act, has been endorsed by the 
President and has been approved by overwhelming margins in both the 
Senate and the House of Representatives. It would finally make sense 
out of a set of confusing, overlapping, and unenforceable laws that 
have been in need of reform for more than 40 years. Unfortunately, we 
find ourselves unable to proceed to conference on that bill and to 
report the measure back to the Senate for final passage because it has 
become hung up on the issue of congressional gift rules.
  The bill that we are considering today is one of a series of proposed 
congressional gift bills that have tied up consideration of the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act for a full year now. This bill was introduced 
by Senators Lautenberg, Wellstone, and Feingold in March of this year 
and referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee with unanimous 
consent that the Senate turn to the measure by no later than May 4. The 
bill was referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee rather than to 
the Rules Committee because of the way it was drafted. That was not our 
call to make. That was the Parliamentarian's call to make.
  In my view, the Senate gift rules should be strong and they should be 
clear. We owe it to ourselves, and we owe it to the public to have 
rules which are simple and straightforward and which prohibit gifts 
that would be inappropriate in appearance or in reality.
  The current gift rules do not meet this test. For example, while the 
gift rules applicable to executive branch employees prohibit the 
acceptance of even a single gift with a value in excess of $20, our 
rules permit the acceptance of any number of gifts under $100 from the 
same source. In theory, that means that we could accept a $95 gift from 
the same source every day--and, by the way, not even disclose it under 
the gift rules. Even gifts of more than $100 are allowed, up to a total 
of $250 a year from a single source.
  The current, overly permissive rules can create the appearance of 
favoritism. At a time when the public's confidence in Congress is low, 
such an appearance is poison for public confidence in Government. That 
is not good for the Congress and it is not good for the country.
  Senators Lautenberg, Wellstone, and Feingold tried to address this 
problem when they introduced S. 1935. In my view, the Lautenberg-
Wellstone-Feingold bill, as introduced, was too complex, was 
unworkable, and would have produced anomalous results unrelated to any 
public policy. It failed to distinguish between gifts from a lobbyist 
and a gift from a constituent back home who happens to be an officer of 
a company or association that has used a lobbyist on even a single 
occasion in a 6-month period. It failed to distinguish, for instance, 
between a dinner at the house of a neighbor back home who happens to be 
a board member of the Cancer Society and dinner at a fancy Washington 
restaurant paid for by a lobbyist.
  Let me just give you one example of how the original bill would have 
worked. Let us say your next door neighbor back home invited you to a 
backyard barbecue. Under S. 1935, as introduced, you might not be 
permitted to go at all if your neighbor were an officer of a company or 
association that had used a lobbyist in the previous 6 months, assuming 
that you can find out that information at all. The bill contained an 
exception for gifts that are determined to be based on personal 
friendship, but placed the responsibility for making this determination 
in the hands of an executive branch agency.
  In fact, if you were permitted to go your neighbor's barbecue, your 
attendance would trigger an extraordinarily complex set of notification 
and disclosure requirements. First, under that original bill, your 
friend would have to be notified by the lobbyist for any company or 
association of which he was an officer or director that the gift 
restrictions apply. Then, the friend would have to notify those 
entities that he had invited you to the barbecue, and they would have 
to notify their lobbyist of this fact. Next, the lobbyist would have to 
notify you that unless you paid for your attendance at the barbecue, it 
would be disclosed in a lobbying report. Once all those notifications 
had been made, the lobbyist would report the gift. If your friend were 
a director of several corporations, each of which had more than one 
lobbyist, the notification process would have to be repeated over and 
over again, and the barbecue would be reported in multiple lobbying 
reports. If any of the lobbyists failed to disclose the barbecue in 
their lobbying reports, the gift would be improper, and the public 
would likely hold you accountable for accepting it.
  Mr. President, if these new gift rules are going to help reestablish 
public confidence in the Congress, as we all want them to do, they will 
have to be strong, of course, but they will also have to be simple and 
clear. I feel that S. 1935, as introduced, fails to meet this test.
  For this reason and other reasons that each of us had at the time, 
the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee reported a substitute 
amendment to S. 1935. This substitute amendment is the amendment which 
is before us. So, I make it real clear that what is pending now before 
the Senate is not the original bill as introduced by Senators 
Lautenberg, Feingold, and Wellstone. It is the substitute bill which 
was approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee, and the substitute 
amendment contains gift rules which are tough, but they are also 
straightforward and, hopefully, easy to understand.
  Under the committee substitute, Members and staff would be prohibited 
from accepting any gifts from registered lobbyists, with a narrow 
exemption for gifts from relatives and close personal friends.
  Members and staff would be permitted to accept gifts of up to $20 
from any source other than a registered lobbyist, and gifts in excess 
of $20 could be accepted in a number of situations, which are listed, 
such as gifts from relatives and close personal friends; personal 
hospitality, such as dinner at a person's home; meals and entertainment 
in a Member's home State, and that is a very important exemption that 
we wrote in so you could have meals and entertainment back home subject 
to reasonable limits adopted by the Rules Committee but not subject to 
the $20 limit. And also not subject to the $20 limit is, for example, 
participation in widely attended events which the Member believes to be 
part of his or her duties.
  Members and staff will be permitted to accept reimbursement for 
travel expenses from anybody other than a registered lobbyist if the 
travel is related to official business and is not substantially 
recreational in nature.
  These rules are not perfect because these rules cannot be perfect. 
There is no such thing as perfect rules. They are as good as we could 
make them. We believe that they are strong and that they are clear and 
that they will go a long way toward ensuring public confidence in our 
conduct.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, apparently there is a perception among some 
in the American public that Congress is for sale--that for the price of 
a steak dinner or a fruit basket at Christmas, Members would change 
votes or give greater access than would otherwise be provided. I would 
say that all Members of Congress reject the notion that any access is 
granted in exchange for gifts. Everyone here would agree it is not only 
unethical and improper, but it also happens to be a crime. It is a 
criminal violation if someone were to exchange his or her office for a 
gift, in whatever form they might come. However, the perception remains 
that through gift giving, lobbyists can influence and divert the course 
of national policy.
  There is a growing belief that lobbyists and other so-called power 
brokers are to blame for record deficits and a tax code that is filled 
with loopholes and other special interest legislation. The public 
believes, rightly or wrongly, that they are not being well served by 
their elected officials; that somehow, in the corridors of power, their 
best interests are subverted by the giving of gifts to Members of 
Congress. The feeling is that the inability of Congress to address the 
most critical problems that the Nation faces is a direct result of who 
Members go to lunch with. It might come as a surprise that most days, 
Senators join only other Senators for lunch.
  Regardless of what actions the Senate takes today, the public's anger 
and cynicism will show little sign of abating. Although I understand 
the need to address this anger, the Senate should not think that 
passage of this legislation will quell the public's cynicism toward 
Congress. We should do it for the good of the institution and not under 
the misappropriation that the public will hold a higher view of 
Congress. The key to restoring Congress' standing with the public is 
meaningful action on critical issues such as the deficit, crime, health 
care, and the economy.
  I supported the Levin substitute in committee because I believe that 
it is a vast improvement over S. 1935 as originally introduced. The 
original bill was cumbersome, unworkable, and over bureaucratic. 
Specifically, enforcement of the gift ban under S. 1935 as introduced 
would have given the executive branch a remarkable degree of 
investigative and enforcement power as it relates to Members of 
Congress and lobbyists. For example, under the personal friendship 
exemption, Members could only accept gifts if there was a clear history 
of friendship between Member and gift-giver to make it clear that the 
gift is motivated personal friendship. In this case, the executive 
branch agency responsible for lobbying disclosure and public reporting 
would define the term ``friendship'' and determine the specific 
individuals who would meet that friendship test.
  Most disturbing are the reporting requirements that would have been 
imposed by S. 1935 as originally introduced. The requirements in the 
original bill would have created a Rube Goldberg-type labyrinth of 
responsibility and reporting. Under its complex provisions, if a Member 
wanted to accept a $15 Christmas gift from a constituent, the Member 
would have to determine whether the constituent was an officer of any 
organization that had used a registered lobbyist at any time during the 
last 6 months. Other examples also illustrate the reporting 
complexities required by the version offered by the Senator from New 
Jersey and the Senator from Minnesota. For example, if a Member attends 
a dinner at the house of a personal friend who was on the board of 
directors of a number of different organizations, some of which used 
lobbyists, the following would need to occur:
  First, lobbyists would have to notify the organizations and their top 
officers--including this personal friend--that the gift rules apply;
  Second, the host would have to notify the organizations that used 
lobbyists about the dinner;
  Third, the organizations would have to, in turn, notify their 
lobbyists; and
  Fourth, the lobbyists would have to disclose the dinner to the 
executive branch agency.
  Finally, lobbyists would also have to notify the Member that they 
were disclosing the dinner.
  This scenario would become more complicated if each one of the 
organizations used more than one lobbyists, as many do.
  Mr. President, as you can see, S. 1935 as originally introduced would 
have created an unworkable hodgepodge of requirements and rules. The 
Levin substitute provides a workable gift ban alternative which, as 
long as the Senate insists on banning gifts, establishes a reasonable 
framework for accomplishing many of the objectives of the original 
version of S. 1935.
  Specifically, the Levin proposal works within the framework of the 
House and Senate rules and avoids a number of definitional problems 
that contribute to the complexity and implementation problems that were 
associated with earlier gift ban legislation. I commend for his 
willingness to provide leadership to find a responsible solution to 
this difficult issue.
  If there are other proposals that would improve upon Senator Levin's 
efforts, then I certainly am open to listening to them.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, let me begin our side of this debate by 
saying that this is a good faith effort on behalf of all Senators; 
deeply felt, but a good faith effort on behalf of all Senators.
  I want to begin by commending Senator Levin for excellent work in 
trying to make this thing workable. The distinguished ranking minority 
member has also invested great time and effort. This is an endeavor 
among friends. It is, in fact, deeply felt, so I felt the necessity of 
saying that in advance; that all Senators respect one another greatly.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I can hardly believe what I just 
heard. The Senator from Maine has said there is a public perception 
that the Senate is for sale for a basket of fruit at Christmas.
  Has this body dropped to that level of perception among the American 
public; that is, a basket of fruit buys the U.S. Senate? If it is, God 
help the United States of America, Mr. President.
  I do not believe that is true. And I think to say it on the floor of 
the Senate degrades this institution, hurts the United States of 
America, and our system of free government, for which so many 
sacrifices have been made. I do not believe we ought to tear down this 
institution from the inside or the outside.
  Now, Mr. President, the best thing that can be said for the Levin 
amendment is it is better than the Wellstone amendment. Let me tell you 
some of the things it does.
  My wife is a cochairman of the National Garden Ball, or whatever they 
call it. Next week, they are going to have a big dinner. She has worked 
her heart out for the National Garden. They are trying to raise, I 
think it is, $7 million or $8 million to build a beautiful garden to be 
owned by the United States, administered by the Architect of the 
Capitol.
  She, and B.A. Bentsen, and Senator Heinz's widow, are all cochairmen. 
The ball is in honor of the First Lady. Indeed, Hillary Clinton is 
having a coffee at the White House for those who have contributed 
$100,000 or more. When it is finished, Mr. President, it is going to be 
one of the most marvelous gifts of time and effort of these women and 
men who have worked to create something for the people of the United 
States.
  There is not one whit of selfishness. There is no lobbying advantage 
in this endeavor. But you would not be able, I would not be able to go 
to that ball, and indeed she would not be able to go to the ball, 
either. They would not be able to do this activity under this bill.
  Now, Mr. President, what are we coming to in the Senate when you 
cannot do something for the National Garden?
  Let me just give you some of the things I have been to lately that, 
as I understand it, we would not be able to do:
  The Opera Ball. I ask the Senator from Michigan, would we be able to 
go to the Opera Ball?
  Mr. LEVIN. I have to have more facts about it.
  As to lobbyists giving the tickets to the Opera Ball, the answer is 
no.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. No; they are provided usually free from the Opera Ball. 
I do not know who the Opera Ball is. I mean, it is not a Senate duty, 
it is not personal hospitality, it is not at someone's home, it is not 
at a Member's home State, it is not paid for by the Government, it is 
not a political organization.
  I assume we cannot go to the Opera Ball, is that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. Is this part of your ceremonial or official duties to go 
to the Opera Ball?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. No.
  Mr. LEVIN. Who is giving you the tickets?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I guess the Opera Ball.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would like to know more facts.
  Again, if they are coming from a lobbyist, the answer is no.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. They are coming from the Opera Ball, the Opera Ball 
organization.
  Mr. LEVIN. Are they a registered lobbyist?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Opera people are not.
  Mr. LEVIN. In that case, I think you should be able to go to that 
ball.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I think you should be, too.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Louisiana would let me complete my 
thought on this, it is our intention that you be able to go to a 
broadly attended activity, a widely attended event, at the invitation 
of the responsible organization. And there is a managers' amendment 
which would clarify it.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, it is not if it is over $20 under your amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am saying there is a managers' amendment that will 
clarify that issue. If there is a broadly attended event, at the 
invitation of the sponsor, which you are not being invited to by a 
registered lobbyist--which is what you are saying--the managers' 
amendment will make it clear you will be permitted to do that.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Suppose at the Opera Ball that most of the money comes 
from lobbyists and the Opera Ball Committee, which would be--widely 
invites people, but most of the money comes from lobbyists. It either 
comes from lobbyists or companies that are represented by lobbyists--
indirectly, by lobbyists.
  Would you not agree that is indirectly money coming by lobbyists?
  Mr. LEVIN. Maybe indirectly, but you have not been invited by 
lobbyists and given the tickets by lobbyists. And under the 
circumstances I think it is not clear.
  It should be clear and will be clear, under the managers' amendment, 
that you will be allowed to go to a widely attended event not at the 
invitation of a lobbyist that you consider to be part of your duties.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Does the Senator have a copy of his amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. I do.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. May I take a look at it while I am speaking?
  I am glad the Senator is going to attempt to change this because that 
is no small part of what I do, because my wife is very active. She has 
been chairman of the Ambassadors Ball, for example, as have other wives 
in the Senate. The Ambassadors Ball is for the diplomatic community in 
Washington, and also they send out invitations to the lobbyists. And 
let us be fair, it is paid for indirectly by lobbyists. This bill 
prohibits gifts provided directly or indirectly by a person registered 
as a lobbyist.
  I wonder, for example, about someone's fundraiser. If I go to a 
fundraiser by the Senator from Michigan and you have a bunch of 
lobbyists there who bring in contributions and I get a free ticket, I 
will tell you, that is indirectly paid for by a lobbyist. If you think 
that is clear that it is not, I invite you to read this language.
  Mr. President, this--it is about 1\1/2\ pages of prohibitions and 
10\1/2\ pages of exceptions, which are very, very difficult to read and 
to understand. We are going to be plugging leaks in this thing like we 
are with the managers' amendment here. Some people are probably going 
to get in some very serious trouble very innocently if this passes. 
They are going to have to have a full-time lawyer in the office.
  I ask the Senator from Michigan, there are provisions in here that 
prevent a person from inheriting from a lobbyist. Did you know that? 
From inheriting.
  Here the poor lobbyist is dead and his son or daughter works for the 
U.S. Senate. And he goes to court to try to get the bequest from dad 
and he cannot do it. This bill prohibits that. If you think I am 
trivializing this amendment--that is what this amendment provides. I 
will bet you anything the managers did not know that result inhered in 
this language.
  There are so many little difficulties in this bill--it is incredible. 
Let me tell you some of the things I have done during the past.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield on that?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. On page 37, on line (3), it says, ``Anything provided 
under circumstances that clearly indicate * * * that it is provided for 
a nonbusiness purpose and is motivated by a family relationship or 
personal friendship and not by the position of the Member, officer or 
employee.'' So you could accept that bequest from your dad, who is a 
lobbyist.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. That is on page what?
  Mr. LEVIN. Page 37.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, that is, ``Anything provided.'' The phrase 
``anything provided'' does not sound like a bequest to me. The Senator 
may be right. He may be right. And I must tell you that bequests from a 
lobbyist are not my principal concern with this bill. I can tell you it 
is the stuff of a lawsuit, it is the stuff of embarrassment to 
Senators--not the bequest business, but you can get a bequest from a 
nonlobbyist but not from a lobbyist under the bill. Suppose some 
lobbyist did want to make a bequest to somebody. Why are we dealing 
with that? Does the American public have the perception that lobbyists 
are dying and leaving bequests to United States Senators or employees 
thereof? Why are we dealing with such trivia in this bill?
  Let me tell you some of the things I have been to this past year and 
that are the regular stuff of politics in Louisiana. We had a Black 
Caucus lunch, you know. I guess they wanted to lobby me and I wanted to 
lobby them. I say Black Caucus Lunch, actually they were going to give 
me an award for what I have done for historically black colleges and 
universities.
  We had a Louisiana sheriff's dinner. They come up every now and then. 
I can tell you we discussed everything, we told jokes, we had some fun.
  The CPA's had a lunch up here. I have a friend who was a national 
president of a CPA organization. I do not remember what they said, but 
they had it.
  The board of directors of the Shreveport Chamber come up every year. 
That is my hometown. They have a dinner. They discuss their legislative 
agenda--you bet. So did the New Orleans Chamber. They had a lunch. So 
did the Monroe Chamber. They have an empowerment zone they want to put 
in and we had a luncheon.
  The Louisiana Jewish Federation came up. They were going to look at 
the Holocaust Museum and had members of our delegation there for a 
dinner.
  The National Guard from Louisiana comes up. They have a crawfish and 
alligator reception. Crawfish and alligator is pretty good.
  The realtors have a lunch, from Louisiana.
  The yam--yams are sweet potatoes to everybody else--but the Louisiana 
Yam Association comes up and has a lunch.
  Very Special Arts, which is something my wife and daughter have been 
involved in for the handicapped people, they have a dinner.
  Tulane and Xavier, two universities, had a reception this year.
  The Louisiana Hospital Association had a reception.
  The superconducting super collider people came up and we had a 
lunch--not a very successful lunch.
  The Times Picayune came up and had a dinner. There is a very evil 
thing. I was trying to lobby them--and also not with success.
  I just went to the State of Arkansas. They had a catfish dinner the 
other day. We are going to have a big seafood lunch. Maybe a seafood 
lunch is under the managers' amendment.
  It is like the dike that springs all these leaks and you keep going 
around saying yes, we will fix that because that seafood lunch, that is 
a good thing. Fix the seafood lunch. You say APAC has a good 
conference. That is widely attended. Let us fix that. Let us fix the 
rest of it.
  But, Mr. President, you have started with the perception here--or a 
theme that the Senate can be bought for a basket of fruit. And if the 
Senate can be bought for a basket of fruit at Christmastime you are not 
going to fix that by a very complicated amendment that is going to take 
an in-house Philadelphia lawyer, going to take triple the number of 
employees over at the Ethics Committee.
  Mr. President, this is not the problem. This is going to make it much 
more difficult to do our job as U.S. Senators because we ought to meet 
with these people. Lunches and dinners are the right time to meet with 
people.
  I have not even gotten into the charity events because I do not do 
many of those. I have in years past. I have not done them in some 
while. But some of my colleagues are going to be able to testify to the 
number of dollars that are raised and the worthiness of the charity 
events. There is a perception there, maybe. I know ``20/20'' goes out 
every now and then and catches Senators doing something they should not 
to embarrass Senators. Maybe so. I think disclosure is the problem 
there, and those things ought to be disclosed. Believe me, you are 
going to discourage most Senators from going to most of those kinds of 
things.
  But whereas, for example, one Senator is going to testify that one 
event which he puts on raises in the hundreds of thousands for a 
charity in his State and has a thousand volunteers--Senators do a lot 
of that kind of thing. That is not a problem, Mr. President. When you 
try to come in and fix those kinds of rules with an endlessly 
complicated bill, you are doing more harm than good.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I think, as I was 
listening to the Senator list a variety of different trips or places, I 
think that the problem sometimes--sometimes; we do not want to 
overstate the case--is that sometimes in the Congress, Representatives 
and Senators take other kinds of trips that are paid by lobbyists or 
clients that really have something to do with interests that are 
directly involved in the work that we do. I think we then get back to 
Senator Cohen's point about whether or not that does create the kind of 
perception that people have.
  I must say to the Senator, I understand the sense in which he is 
talking about this, but I also think that if you were to ask 99.999 
percent of the people in the country whether or not they think it is 
appropriate that Members of the House or Senate take these trips and 
have those trips paid for, as opposed to just simply not accepting 
those kinds of gifts, people would say no, it is not appropriate, we do 
not want you to do that.
  I do not think it is so much that people are saying this is the sort 
of corruption as in the wrongdoing of an individual officeholder. I 
think what people are simply saying is that it is inappropriate, it is 
not necessary, and they do not think it is right. I think they are 
right. Thus, I think this is what the Senator from Michigan and the 
committee is really trying to address. I think it is a very important 
formulation.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Let me ask the Senator, if what you say is true that 
99.999 percent of the people in the country think ``these trips,'' you 
have in mind some trips other than what I have in mind----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Sure, but those trips do take place. I am sure the 
Senator will agree with me.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Let us take one trip featured on ``20/20.'' I think the 
Senator from New Jersey spoke out on that. Let us take that trip.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Take another one.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Take whatever you want to. Let us say the tobacco 
industry goes to wherever you want to go to and they have fun and they 
do not do any serious work, we will say that is a bad trip.
  If you had to disclose that, do you think any Senator is going to go 
to that sort of thing now, and is that not sufficient protection, 
rather than trying to get in and, by the sledgehammer when you get that 
gnat then you have hit the symphony ball and the National Guard dance 
and all of these other really good charities?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I do not want to monopolize and I know other people 
want to speak, but I will say to the Senator two or three things. 
Number one, let me kind of apply the Minnesota cafe test. I know my 
State best. Most people would say, ``In all due respect, Senators, we 
don't really understand why you're talking about disclosing because we 
don't think it is appropriate you take those kinds of gifts in the 
first place. Why are you talking about disclosure? We do not think it 
is appropriate that you would have the tobacco industry, which is 
directly lobbying, paying for you to go wherever--Bermuda, wherever--
for 3 or 4 days. We think it is inappropriate.''
  Mr. JOHNSTON. How about----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I can finish, that would be the first point.
  The second point is I think there is skepticism whether or not the 
disclosure ends up working. I think there have been past problems with 
that. I think people see it as too bureaucratic. And I think people 
might not be convinced that it will be all that easy for them, the 
citizens, to get a hold of the information. But the first point the 
people would make is that one that intuitively is the most important 
because I think we do have to understand that, which is why are you 
talking about disclosing such a trip when you should not take it in the 
first place? That is the argument, and it is a good argument.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Do you say you should not go to the symphony ball, 
ambassador ball, National Guard, the opera ball, what have you?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will yield to the Senator from Michigan. I was 
reminding you----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. What do you say----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. It all depends upon who is paying for it. I have to 
have more information, OK? I would just simply say, I am now just 
speaking for myself--I found it interesting that as the Senator listed 
trips, it seemed to me that he also left out some of the kinds of trips 
to places that Members of the Congress sometimes go, not because they 
are corrupt, not because they are awful. I am not interested in any of 
that but which I really do think make people believe it is just simply 
not appropriate, and they are right. That is simply what I am pointing 
out to the Senator.
  As to the particular examples you give, it all sort of depends upon 
who is paying. I think I will yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. But----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will tell you what my own view is--if I can finish 
the sentence--I will tell you what my own view is. If you were to ask 
me about the opera, I would say you can go to any opera you want to; 
you pay for it. Just like regular people pay for it when they go to the 
opera. It is that simple.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I believe I have made the point I wanted 
to make, which was disclosure is the key. I do not doubt that there are 
some things I would not touch with a 10-foot pole and go to. I have not 
been on a ski trip, not because I think it is evil or wrong. I do not 
happen to ski, so I never was tempted in the first place. But if I went 
and disclosed it, then the voters would be the judge of that. And if 
they think that I can be bribed with a basket of fruit at Christmas, 
believe me, they would think I could be bribed with a ski trip, and 
they would vote against me. I would not go for that purpose.
  But there are a whole slew of other perfectly appropriate things. The 
United Negro College Fund, one of our colleagues is involved in that. 
Another one puts on and sponsors an event for a hospital in his 
hometown. What is wrong with that?
  The problem is, when you try to make these very complicated rules 
where you do not know where one ends and one begins, Mr. President, it 
is much worse than leaving it up to the voters. If we are so unpopular 
and so badly viewed, believe me, none of us are coming back anyway. The 
whole raft of us is going to be gone, if that is the public perception.
  I do not happen to believe it is the public perception. I think a 
man's political life or a woman's political life in this body is well-
known. I think our reputations for integrity or not for integrity are 
well-known back home, and we are going to be judged by that. We ought 
to disclose what we do and let the voters decide and not come in with 
10\1/2\ pages of exceptions and exemptions and maybes. Words like 
``indirectly.'' What in the world does indirectly mean? You cannot 
accept a gift that is paid for or go to an event that is indirectly 
sponsored by lobbyists. That includes most things in this town. Those 
that are best, those that are worst.
  Mr. President, I think it would be a grave mistake to enact this 
bill, as well-intended as it is.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, I will.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would like to answer some of the questions. I think most 
of the events he talked about are widely attended events and would be 
events that a person can go to and not have to worry about paying for 
them, if I followed your list. I do not know I got each of them, but I 
think they all would qualify.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The New Orleans Chamber dinner just had me, Monroe 
Chamber had me, CPA's----
  Mr. LEVIN. Were they here or back home?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Here.
  Mr. LEVIN. In that case, they would be covered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Black caucus lunch, just our delegation. National Guard 
was just Louisiana delegation.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would say--the widely attended does not 
mean by Members of Congress, it means widely attended otherwise. 
Broadly attended event----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. What is the number? Why do you not put a number on it 
so we would know?
  Mr. LEVIN. Do you want to put a number on it?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I do not want the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. In that case, I can assure you there is already an 
amendment on it.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. What is the number?
  Mr. LEVIN. Fifty. Since you wanted a number on it, there is----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Is that in the bill?
  Mr. LEVIN. It is in the report language. Second, in other words, we 
have indicated what our estimate is of a widely attended event.
  Since the Senator wants a number in there, if that is what the 
Senator means and has said, we would be very happy to have the 
Senator----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Fifty lobbyists and one Senator would do it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Widely attended event. It is other than lobbyists. Widely 
attended. But the Senator said that he wanted a number in there and now 
seems to be----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I did not. I said this is vague; we do not know what 
the number is. And I do not want a number. I do not want the amendment. 
I am just illustrating how difficult this amendment is to comply with. 
It is a nightmare.
  Mr. LEVIN. It seems to me the Senator wants it neither vague nor 
specific.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator does not want this amendment, you can be 
sure of that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Second, the Senator has also raised a question about 
disclosure. I think that is going to get to the heart of the matter on 
these trips, which have been such a subject matter of concern. These 
are the trips that have been shown on these TV shows where Members of 
Congress go, where the lobbyists are present, where it looks like it is 
principally recreational, where people are hiding from cameras so that 
they are not seen on television.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. By the way----
  Mr. LEVIN. If I could just finish this one thought. The Senator's 
point is, well, why not just disclose that kind of a trip? There are 
really two answers to that. First of all, those trips already are 
disclosed. Disclosure has not prevented this institution from being 
held up to public scorn. As a matter of fact, it contributed to this 
institution's being held up to public scorn when it was not only 
disclosed in our records but played up very widely on national network 
television.
  Second, though, I think the main point is this. In the one that was 
on, I believe, ``60 Minutes,'' for instance, this is the one where the 
announcer said:

       Two weeks ago the action was at the exclusive Boca Raton 
     Resort and Club on Florida's Gold Coast where rooms go for 
     more than $300 a night. We went there first a year ago and 
     found 17 present and former lawmakers having a good time, 
     courtesy of companies like U.S. Tobacco.

  Now, the people who were there may or may not be able to survive 
politically that kind of a show. I do not know. Let us assume they all 
can. The problem is that that kind of a trip, where it is paid for by 
special interests, where lobbyists are present and where it is 
principally a recreational trip, although there may be some work going 
on in the morning, but where it is principally a recreational trip, 
where your spouses are present and it is principally recreational, 
holds the institution up to disrepute and makes public confidence in 
Government that much less likely. It undermines public confidence in 
this institution when that kind of a trip has a broad display in the 
media. And even though the individuals who go there are required now to 
disclose them, disclosure cannot solve the problem. It has not solved 
it yet, even though those 17----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Did they have that trip last year? I think disclosure 
has solved your problem. I think that is correct. I am not sure.
  Mr. LEVIN. No, no, it does not because they had disclosure of these 
trips when they were made. These trips were disclosed.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I know, but having been disclosed----
  Mr. LEVIN. The people still may or may not survive politically. My 
point is even though all the individuals who go there may politically 
back home survive that kind of a hit in the media, this institution has 
been weakened by that kind of attendance at that kind of event paid for 
by corporate interests. Even though half the money may go to a charity, 
the other half is paying for what appears to be the recreation of 
Members of this body. And the problem is that that then undermines 
public confidence in this body even if the Members who go there and who 
disclose the trip can be reelected in their particular States.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I would say to the Senator that there are one or two 
trips like that where the press corps is there, people are on the beach 
and everything.
  By the way, speaking of network television, I understand on one of 
these trips the networks sent in some pretty girls where the guys were 
out--I do not know, they were sitting by the swimming pool or 
something--pretty girls as props so that they could embarrass the 
Senators or whatever. I was not there and I do not--I just say that as 
a little aside to tell you that it is not always responsible 
journalism. Nevertheless, there are two or three of those trips.
  But how about the good trips? One of my Senator friends will be here 
to testify about this event he sponsors, which is the main event for 
his hometown--I think it is hometown--hospital, 1,000 volunteers. Do 
you want to prevent his doing that in order to stop this trip, this 
tennis trip down to Boca Raton, which I believe has been stopped anyway 
because I think everybody has quit going? You have this sledgehammer 
where you react to one or two high-profile trips and it stops all the 
rest.
  By the way, when you talk about trips that are ``substantially 
recreational''--I think that is the phrase used in the law. You can go 
on a trip that is substantially recreational. Where is that phrase? 
Yes, events that are substantially recreational in nature. Now, I wish 
to ask the Senator, one of my friends puts on a postelection event 
every year, every 4 years, after the election and has in money 
managers. They are not lobbyists, but they manage billions of dollars 
of public funds. They want to find out what is going on. And a number 
of colleagues have spoken to that. We have had ex-Presidents speak. We 
have had economists, authors. I mean, it is a very distinguished group, 
and I am always pleased to be there. I do not think there is a lobbyist 
there. But I think they start, if I recall correctly, at 7:30 a.m. and 
go until 12 noon. In the afternoon they have a tennis tournament, or 
some of them play golf, and that evening they come in and have a 
dinner.
  Now, would that be prohibited as being substantially recreational in 
nature?
  Mr. LEVIN. The way the bill is worded, if the Member participates in 
an event as a speaker or panel participant by presenting information 
related to Congress or matters before the Congress, that is OK; 
attendance at the event is appropriate in the performance of the 
official duties of the Member, officer or employer.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Another provision says if it is substantially 
recreational----
  Mr. LEVIN. If the event is substantially. The way the Senator 
describes it, that event is not substantially recreational.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Most of the hours of the----
  Mr. LEVIN. The event itself.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. There are as many hours of the day spent in recreation 
as there are in conferences. The conference is--what is that? That is 
5\1/2\ hours.
  On page 45:

       Events, the activities of which are substantially 
     recreational in nature, shall not be considered to be in 
     connection with the duties of a Member, officer, or employee 
     as an officeholder.

  Now, is that not substantially, I mean, most of the day?
  Mr. LEVIN. It sounds to me like that event was not substantially 
recreational. That person did not come down to go to the golf 
tournament. That would be a substantially recreational event. That 
person did not come down to go to the tennis tournament. That person 
came down to participate in the other events that the Senator talked 
about, which were panel discussions or whatever they were. The event 
that the person came down to was not----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. ``Events, the activities of which are substantially 
recreational in nature,'' I mean, does that have to do with time or 
importance or what?
  Mr. LEVIN. If the person is coming down to participate in a golf 
tournament, that is a substantially recreational event the person is 
coming down to.
  It did not sound to me like that person was coming down to an event 
the purpose of which was recreational. The purpose of coming down to 
your event was not for recreational purposes. The purpose in coming 
down to your event was all of those other purposes. That was the reason 
he came down.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I can tell you at that particular event that they had 
at Palm Springs, or something like that--Palm Desert, in November. And 
make no mistake about it, they had it at a nice watering hole because 
you could not get people to come. If you were having it in Minneapolis 
in January, they would not come. Or, if they had it in the South in the 
middle of summer, they would not come. They went to a nice place. The 
people can afford to do it, and the activities of that are 
substantially recreational in nature.
  Maybe you could write to the Ethics Committee and submit your 
schedule, and say, ``Look. Even though we are going to have 5\1/2\ 
hours of conferences, even though I am going to speak, here are the 
speakers.'' They would say, ``Well, the event is really a substantive 
event. It is so. Therefore, we are going to let you go. But you had 
better stay in your room and study your lessons in the afternoon. And 
whatever you do, don't get out on that tennis court or don't get out on 
the golf lanes because you might be corrupted out there or something.''
  Give me a break, Mr. President. This thing is so full of unnecessary 
rules and ambiguous, vague, traps for Senators.
  Does the Senator agree with me--let me ask him this final question, 
and I will yield the floor. I have talked too long.
  Does the Senator agree with me that we are going to have to at least 
triple the number of employees at the Ethics Committee, and that each 
individual Senator better have a full-time ethics guidance counselor in 
the office, and in your other places?
  Mr. LEVIN. Not all. As a matter of fact, I look at the current issues 
considered by the Ethics Committee. It seems to me we are going to have 
fewer issues than the Ethics Committee now has perhaps. ``What types of 
awards may be accepted by Members of Congress?'' We have had three 
interpretative rulings under the current rules. Whether Members may 
accept items like season passes to entertainment and sports events? We 
have two interpretative rulings of the Ethics Committee. Entertainment 
from local events. We have had three interpretative rulings. Home State 
products, two; loan of furniture and office equipment, three. What 
types of expenses constitute necessary expenses that may be reimbursed 
in connection with travel? Three. What types of personal hospitality? 
We have all kinds of interpretative rulings by the Ethics Committee.
  It seems to me this particular approach we are using is simple and 
direct and not more complex than current rules. Wherever you draw the 
line, you are going to draw it at a different place than we had. If we 
have $20, you will say $75. You will have different places to draw the 
line.
  There are going to require interpretation as the current rules 
require interpretation.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Under the Senator's amendment, would he not agree with 
me that rather than to have three interpretative rulings on--I forget 
what it was the Senator said; three rulings for events? Would you 
really have to have an interpretative ruling on each and every event 
you go to, if you are going to be safe?
  Mr. LEVIN. No. No more, say, than currently.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. You would go off on this trip where they have golf and 
tennis in the afternoon, dinner at night 7:30 to 8 o'clock. Just assume 
that is not substantially recreational in nature.
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes. The event is not. The event you went to is the event. 
The reason you went down, per your description, was not for 
recreational purposes. The reason you went down there was for the 
purpose to go and participate as a Senator.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I took my tennis racket.
  Mr. LEVIN. Are you going to pay your own tennis fees?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. No. They had a little tournament in connection with 
this thing.
  Mr. LEVIN. What was the reason you went down?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. It was partially my friendship with the guy who puts it 
on. He is a longtime, good friend. Partially it was, I thought, a high 
honor to be with this crowd. We have had former Presidents. We have 
had, I forget who all was there. Rowland Evans I think was the 
moderator. We have had distinguished economists. I learned a lot, and 
partially or substantially because it was in a nice place at a nice 
time of the year, and I could play some tennis--all of those reasons.
  Mr. LEVIN. Under this approach, ``substantially recreational,'' you 
could not accept that trip because the event then, as you have just 
described it, was substantially a recreational event.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I realize he has changed his own opinion on the same 
facts.
  Mr. LEVIN. No. You just gave me the facts. You told us the first time 
the reason you went to that event was those morning events, and that 
then those other events, were not the principal reasons for your going. 
Now you are saying there was not a principal reason for your trip. 
There are three principal reasons, and the words you used were that a 
substantial reason for that trip was recreational. Under this approach, 
you then have made the judgment because you said it was substantially 
recreation. You do not need a lawyer. You now have made the judgment 
under this approach that you could not have that paid for by somebody 
else. You have answered your own question.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana continues to have 
the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am about to wind this up. But my 
friend, I think what he illustrates is that each and every event is 
going to require a special ruling from the Ethics Committee. Because, 
if what is in my head when I think about this event, whether it is 
principally a substantive event--I mean, the National Cancer Institute, 
for example. They always have their meetings in Jamaica, or Aspen, or 
one of these places. If there is ever a substantive group, that is it.
  But any one of these groups is going to have their conference in a 
nice place. Otherwise, people will not come.
  Even though I want to be there to make the speech, the fact that it 
is in a nice place is part of the reason. How can you separate that 
out. Say I am doing this strictly for the business, and after I finish 
speaking, I am going to go back to my room, lock the door, pull down 
the shades and not look outside at the sunshine, and certainly I am not 
going to go into that swimming pool. If it is OK if I make the 
judgment, you know, if I fooled myself, and say I am going only for the 
business part of this, how about somebody else? 20/20 comes in there, 
takes the picture of it, and it has the appearance of being bought or 
something?
  I mean, how can it be worse if they already think you can be bought 
for a basket of fruit?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. I yield for a question.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you.
  I am as concerned, as the Senator is, that this bill, however it ends 
up, does not prevent us from being able to meet with our constituents 
either here or back in our home States.
  I noticed when the Senator listed various groups that he met with 
this past year for lunches, or other gatherings, I had similar meetings 
with Wisconsin groups: the Black Caucus, CPA's, sheriffs, chamber of 
commerce in Wisconsin. The only one I did not recognize was the cabinet 
one we did not have. But there are at least three ways that it is 
possible for me, even with a rule like this, to have met with them.
  One is not to have them in connection with a meal. The second is not 
to eat, not to have lunch. And, the third is to pay your own way.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. For this, bring a brown bag.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is right. There are all options. Are any of these 
options foreclosed by the Levin substitute?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. They might be. I mean, my event where I go where they 
have the conference 7:30 to noon, you might pass up a meal or you pay 
for your own meal. But what do you do about the other recreational 
activities of the day?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am just speaking here of a typical gathering you have 
here in Washington, or home for a lunch. All of those options are still 
available under the Levin substitute, are not they?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. When you go to, say, the Opera Ball, I do not know 
what one of these dinners down here will cost. You go down at the 
hotel. I do not feel like I am really being entertained. I feel like I 
am doing when I go to those things at the Meridian House, the Opera 
Ball, the March of Dimes, what have you, I kind of feel like that is a 
contribution of time and effort to these things, and not something they 
are giving me.
  But if I had to pay $150 for something every time I went to those, 
most Senators except the wealthy ones will not go.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. What I am trying to get at, the normal business meeting 
with constituents, not the balls or those events.
  The Senator specifically referred to a whole series of normal 
meetings that he has over the years. It appears to me from your answer 
that if you exercise any of these options, it will allow you to 
continue to have those business meetings and discuss the issues with 
all of these groups. I am trying to clarify that.
  I think certainly with regard to that list that the Senator gave, 
there is nothing in the Levin proposal that makes his life more 
difficult?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. It would sure make it a lot more expensive to do things 
that are ordinary parts of being a Senator as far as I am concerned.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I have spoken too long.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, let me commend the manager of 
the bill, and say that the substitute which he offered for his version 
of the gift bill was somewhat different, and was an excellent attempt 
to bridge a gap, to get past the differences that we see emerging, and 
as usual, his skill and his knowledge help to clarify the situation, 
even in the current debate. Perhaps there was a question or two that 
was not resolved, but it is a complicated thing that we do, Mr. 
President. It is different. Life is changing. That is what we are about 
to discuss, and that is what we are about to stand up and be counted 
on.

  Either we accept the fact that there is change or we salute the 
status quo. Much of the discussion of the issues associated with reform 
of the current gift rule has been with some passion. That is 
understandable. The reforms we have proposed will change relationships 
radically in Washington, and also impact on Senators in their home 
States. They raise complicated questions about our representational 
roles, the definition of ``official business,'' and how to separate our 
private lives from our public duties. It is natural for Senators to 
have concerns, questions, and reservations. I would like to deal with 
some of those issues today.
  The first point I want to make, because it troubled me the most, 
relates to some of the discussion that took place and a perception that 
the gift ban legislation is in some way designed to reduce this 
organization's stature, or to malign it in any way, or to denigrate the 
individuals.
  Mr. President, it simply is not true. The Senate, despite its 
frequent gridlock, erratic practices, and arcane ways, is an 
institution that deserves respect and even affection. I give it both of 
those. I respect this institution. I love being here, and I love 
representing my constituents. This place plays a critical role in our 
lives and in the way we are going to live, not only now but in the 21st 
century. I believe that each Senator here--not in the room, but in the 
membership--takes his or her responsibilities to constituents and our 
country very, very seriously.
  Mr. President, I am a first-generation American. My parents came to 
this country as infants, brought by their parents who were seeking 
escape from oppression, persecution, looking for liberty, looking for 
opportunity. They struggled to make a living. The performed the most 
menial tasks. Nothing was too small for my father or my widowed mother, 
when she achieved that status at 36 years old; nothing was too small. 
She did what she did to help her kids and herself. They believed that 
America, through all the troubles, was the greatest place on Earth.
  They passed on that deep faith in our country to me. With their 
support, some very good luck, and a lot of hard work, like many others 
in our country, I was able to succeed. I was able to attend college on 
the GI bill after serving in Europe in World War II. I built a 
successful business and then sought public office as a way to 
demonstrate my love and affection for my country and to give something 
back to a State and a country which was so good to me.
  I review that personal history to make it clear that I have more 
reason--or as much reason as anyone--to place my faith and trust in 
this country and be grateful for the opportunities that America has 
given me. I also have more reason than many in this institution to 
appreciate and respect those with whom I serve. I came here without a 
background in politics or legislation. I had a great deal to learn. The 
fact that I was 30 years in the business world, a corporate chief, did 
not mean anything. When I got here, I had to learn from basics about 
what to do. Members of this body, individuals, collectively, helped me 
a lot. I have come to appreciate my colleagues, both professionally and 
personally.
  This very desk, Mr. President, at which I sit, once belonged to 
Senator Harry Truman. He carved his name in the drawer. His name is 
also carved in the history of our country. I made sure this desk 
followed me every place I moved in this Chamber, from the far corner 
where the new Senators start out, to this place, because I am so 
attached to it. I remember my mother's--who was then alive--reaction 
when I told her I sit at the desk at which Harry Truman sat. She was 
impressed, and I think she felt I deserved it. But that is something 
else, Mr. President. Being here at this desk gives me a sense of 
history and underscores for me the special nature of the Senate. I hope 
my work here will add something to that history. But I certainly do not 
want to do anything that diminishes this institution.
  My motivation for sponsoring reform legislation is to increase, not 
decrease, public trust and esteem for the Senate. It is no secret to 
anybody here that Congress, as an institution, is viewed often as a 
captive of special interests. Washington is seen as being separated 
from the concerns and the needs of everyday, working Americans. And I 
can see how they get that impression. It has little to do with a basket 
of fruit. It has to do with whether you work full-time for your boss--
the constituents back home. It has to do with your mission here.
  They are not concerned back home with whether or not you have a good 
time when you go to work, or when you go to conventions or to 
conferences. Yes, I like fun as much as the next person. But my primary 
mission is to serve my constituents, at the same time reminding myself, 
if I forget, that I have a responsibility to them that deals with 
ordinary, everyday problems of how you make a living and educate your 
kids, and how you keep a roof over your head. That is what we are 
talking about.
  The point, Mr. President, is that public confidence--and you see it 
in poll after poll after poll--in Government is at an all-time low. 
There are reasons for it. We all have our own explanations for the 
public's cynicism and distrust. But all of those explanations do not 
alter the fact that the public questions our motives, doubts our 
commitment to the public good, and does not accept our claims of 
independence and integrity.
  All of our reform efforts are a response to that reality: campaign 
finance reform, lobby disclosure reform, congressional procedure 
reform, and gift reform, also. Last year, when the Senate considered 
legislation to provide the public with more information about the way 
lobbyists operate, I advanced a proposal that we do more than disclose 
certain behavior. When it came to the giving of gifts, including travel 
and meals, I said that we ought to severely limit it or ban it 
outright. Yes, I enjoy going out for dinner just like anybody else. It 
is a question of who pays and what takes place at that dinner. I was 
thinking of lobbyists paying for trips and meals, providing free 
tickets to entertainment and sporting events, and generally extending 
special treatment to Members of Congress and staff.
  The bill I introduced, Mr. President, a year ago this month--1 year 
ago--prohibited Members of Congress from accepting such gifts. The 
distinguished manager of this legislation, Senator Levin, was a 
cosponsor of that legislation.
  Five months ago I also sponsored, and the Senate adopted, an 
amendment calling for action on a gift ban by the end of 1993. Despite 
prompt hearings before Senator Levin's subcommittee, the Senate never 
acted on my proposal.
  This year, joined by Senators Wellstone and Feingold, I introduced 
legislation which would regulate the kind of gifts lobbyists could 
give. That approach was consistent with the lobbying reform bill, which 
regulates lobbyists and not Members of Congress.
  After a good deal of effort, we got a unanimous consent agreement for 
the Senate to consider the Lautenberg-Wellstone-Feingold bill by May 4, 
this very day. That agreement set off a series of events which 
culminated in the legislation introduced by Senator Levin several weeks 
ago. His approach is similar to the ban on Member acceptance of gifts 
in my original 1993 bill. It is also, in many ways, an improvement on 
that bill and on the Lautenberg-Wellstone-Feingold legislation of 1994.
  Once again I applaud Senator Levin for his usual excellent 
draftsmanship, courage, and commitment to the highest standards of 
official conduct. I also appreciate the courtesy and cooperation that 
he and his staff extended to all of us during what were often difficult 
discussions. He has produced a bill which, like all legislation, I 
regard as imperfect; but he has also produced a bill that makes real 
and significant reforms in the way Washington does business.
  Here is what the bill does:
  First, it eliminates virtually all gifts from lobbyists to Members of 
Congress and staff. Second, it limits gifts from everyone else, with 
reasonable exceptions for family and friends and awards of mementos and 
the like under $20.
  Someone once said to me: ``Frank, what do you think you can get for 
20 bucks? What kind of meal do you think you can get?'' I said: ``Not 
much.''
  That is the objective to try to eliminate it.
  Third it prohibits all trips that are substantially recreational. We 
all discussed that. It means an end to the kind of charity golf and ski 
trips I went on which had been the object of such criticism and 
controversy. And finally it ensures even if a Member is on a privately 
financed trip, he or she could not accept reimbursement for 
recreational activities.
  That, and more, was in the original Levin bill, as it was in the 
original Lautenberg bill, and the Lautenberg-Wellstone-Feingold bill. 
We did have some concerns about the Levin bill. We worked on those, and 
most have been resolved. A few remain problems, and I hope that they 
can be resolved.
  The bottom line is that this is real and significant reform. It 
fundamentally changes the relationship between lobbyists and Members. 
It fundamentally alters the way we do business in the culture in which 
we live.
  Mr. President, all of us have and will abide by whatever rules exist. 
Under current laws, I participated in some events that I now feel 
should be eliminated and I wish I had not gone. Times were different. 
Some of the trips I took--and I took some trips that this legislation 
would proscribe--were designed to help a specific and wonderful 
charity. Other gifts did not. They were outright gifts, it is true, of 
free meals and entertainment. While I feel I have not routinely 
permitted lobbyists or others to buy me dinner, I have gone to some 
dinners which this legislation would outlaw. I have attended 
entertainment extended gratis to Members of Congress merely because, or 
solely because, they were Members of Congress.
  The problem is not necessarily the individual trip or the particular 
dinner. The problem is the cumulative impact of those trips and the 
dinners and the way that the public sees them.
  The cumulative impact of all those meals, trips and other freebies 
is, Mr. President, to bias the system. Most so-called average citizens 
do not get to spend an hour, or 2, or 3, a weekend, or 2 days, with a 
Senator. Average citizens often do not get to build a personal 
relationship this way with a Senator or a Representative. Average 
citizens do not have the access--the opportunity to present their case 
and explain their concerns is just not available--as lobbyists do get 
it from the time they spend with a Senator or Representative and the 
relationship that develops with them as a result of gift giving or gift 
exchanging.
  Mr. President, the logic underlying our reform proposal is very 
similar to the logic at the core of campaign finance reform 
initiatives. Campaign finance reform is designed in part to reduce 
Member reliance on PAC's and big givers because those contributors 
receive special access as a result of their giving. Reformers do not 
argue that the contributions buy a vote, but they argue that such 
contributions bias the system toward the wealthy. Large contributors 
get special access to Members.
  In many cases, by their very nature, gifts give lobbyists an even 
greater access for hours of time with a Member at a meal, or a trip, or 
theater, or ballpark.
  Beyond the actual bias built into the system by gifts, there is also 
the issue of public trust. The practice of accepting gifts from 
lobbyists--dinners, trips, free tickets--is corrosive to public 
confidence in the Congress.
  Now I want to make this point very clearly. Many, if not most of my 
colleagues, believe that there is nothing wrong with the present 
process. I respect that view. But the public disagrees with it. When 
constituents learn that a Member has taken a trip or accepted a dinner, 
that raises doubts about that Member's independence.
  I want everyone to understand what that means, Mr. President. Every 
Member of this body who does something perfectly legal, perfectly 
allowable under the rules of the Senate, inadvertently often 
contributes to the public's suspicion of Congress. The independence of 
Congress is cast into question by our failure to deal with this 
problem. And what for? For something we ought to be willing to give up 
for the good of the institution. We do not need the trips or the 
dinners or the free tickets. They are fun, yes. I like to go to a 
ballgame; I like to go to the opera; I like to go the theater. I like 
to do all those things. The question is, on whose bill? They are not 
essential to our work. They are not critical to our lives. They are not 
important enough to justify the loss of public confidence in the 
Congress that results from these practices.
  (Mr. CONRAD assumed the chair.)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is not the first time we have 
changed the way Congress does business. Daniel Webster, whose love of 
the Union and service to the Senate has made him one of the towering 
figures of our history, routinely accepted payments from companies 
whose interests he would then champion. That was then. But in a 
different time, with different attitudes, that has become unacceptable. 
We changed the rules, and it is no longer allowed.
  I did not do so, but many current Members of the Senate used to 
accept honoraria, payment for speeches. But over time, with different 
attitudes, that has become unacceptable. We changed the rules, and that 
is no longer allowed.
  We made those changes because an evolving view of public service 
convinced us that we ought to do so. The changes were not an admission 
of prior improper behavior. They were not confirmation of ethical 
misconduct. They were simply a recognition that there had been a change 
in common perceptions of what is proper behavior.
  The bill before us now responds to a similar change. It says that 
along with honoraria, gifts will be banned. Mr. President, this may be 
new to the Congress, but it is not new to other segments of the world. 
When I was the CEO of a fairly large company, I prohibited purchasing 
agents from receiving gifts from potential vendors. I thought there 
might be a conflict of interest associated with that practice. I 
thought it best to avoid those kind of interactions, that kind of bias, 
even though I had full confidence in my managers. The rule was laid 
down.
  This gift ban is similar. It avoids even the appearance of an 
impropriety. There has been a sea change in public expectations about 
Members of the Congress and their conduct. I say that we should 
acknowledge those expectations and do everything that we can to meet 
them. Mr. President, few are drafted to serve in the U.S. Senate. I 
have never heard about a draft. Maybe some have served with such 
distinction. Only 100 people out of this entire country of 260 million 
get to serve here. It is quite a gift.
  Mr. President, I believe that giving up gifts is a small price to pay 
to help restore confidence in Government. The Senator from Michigan 
said that in his opening remarks. It has been a long and often 
difficult trip from our first floor vote on this issue to the proposal 
before us today.
  Mr. President, I think it is apparent life has changed and continues 
to change when you serve in Government. There were many things that 
used to be different. Honoraria was SOP, standard operating practice. 
There was nothing wrong with it. Those were the conditions at the time.
  We even used to have a free gymnasium to use. That is now paid for. 
We have to pay for the doctor's service. It was free before. Why did we 
change it? Because the public wanted us to feel some of the discomfort 
about some of the difficulty they have with their everyday living.
  People outside do not get to go to the doctor free any time they want 
to. They did not have a gymnasium free to use any time they want to. We 
made the changes willingly, forthrightly, because we wanted to respect 
the fact that the public was asking us to get some sense about what we 
are going to do.
  A lot of things have been said in this debate. One thing that was 
commented upon was not wanting to have to hide from the camera.
  Mr. President, if you have to have to hide from the camera, you know 
you done wrong. Let the public be the judge of that. If you have to 
conceal yourself from a camera, Mr. President, it does not take a 
constitutional lawyer to say this is not right. Because if you are 
hiding, you are portraying a secret mission.
  Life has changed, and we have to make a decision. Is life in the 
Senate worth serving when it is simply for the honor and for the 
opportunity and for the privilege of serving here in this great 
country, or does it have to be accompanied by the extras, by the trips? 
Yes, they were fun, of course. But that is not why the public sent us 
here and that is why they resent it, because they want a full-time 
effort here, focused on their issues. And, as I said earlier, we do 
focus on issues, but it is the public perception that has withdrawn us, 
at least as they perceive it, from the routines of life that they go 
through.
  Mr. President, we have changed lots of things. This is going to be a 
difficult debate, apparently. There is a lot of anger, a lot of 
hostility. But, I plead with my colleagues: Let us try to work this 
thing through rationally. We are not doing it because it is fun. I do 
not enjoy this, I can tell you that.
  We have made it this far because of the work of Senator Levin, 
Senator Wellstone, Senator Feingold, and, of course, our leader, 
Senator Mitchell. Senator Boren is a cosponsor of our bill. But we 
still have a long way to go before we get the kind of law we need.
  Mr. President, I look forward to this legislation going to conference 
and coming back in a form which will allow all of us, Members of 
Congress and citizens of this country, to be proud of what has been 
accomplished.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleagues, I will 
be quite brief, because I know there are a good number of people that 
want to speak. We will probably have a long and intense debate, but I 
think it will be an important debate. I think we will agree and 
sometimes disagree with one another in good faith.
  Mr. President, I have been working on this for a year and I feel very 
strongly about this reform effort. I thank Senator Levin for his fine 
work, Senator Cohen, and others as well.
  I would like to talk about this in a somewhat different way, because 
I think each of us has our framework and we are saying what we are 
saying because we believe in what we are doing.
  I think there is a politics of anger in our country, and I really 
worry about it. I guess if I thought this politics of anger or 
cynicism, or whatever you want to call it, was going to translate into 
a citizenry that was more engaged and more empowered and held all of 
us, Democrats and Republicans, accountable, and where people were now 
active citizens and people said we can run for office ourselves, that 
would be fine. I think that would lead to an expansion of democracy.
  But if that politics of anger--and I think anger is a central dynamic 
of American politics. I think some people are very polemical--I am not 
talking about on this floor at all--and sort of tap into that anger. If 
that politics of anger translates into a situation that is an 
indiscriminate bashing of all public service and all people in public 
services, it is going to lead to a decline of democracy, I say to my 
colleagues, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Feingold. I think all of us 
on the floor feel very strongly that we do not want that to happen.
  Mr. President, I think that is what this debate is all about.
  Senator Levin said earlier in his opening remarks, or it may have 
been in response to a question that Senator Johnston had put to him, 
that, you know, the problem with the disclosure as opposed to abiding 
by the same rules the executive branch abides by--I believe the Senate 
went on record something like 97 to 3 in favor of that; that was the 
original Lautenberg sense-of-the-Senate resolution--is that it just 
does no good for this institution for people to see or to hear about 
trips that we take not connected to work, paid for by any number of 
different kinds of special interests. It does not seem appropriate to 
people in Minnesota, or North Dakota, or I think across the country.
  So, Mr. President, I think what we have here is a citizenry which 
increasingly feels left out of the loop. They do not really feel like 
they are listened to the extent they want to be listened to, and they 
feel like some people, whether they are lobbyists or not lobbyists--one 
of the changes that Senator Levin made that I think is really important 
is he really expands the universe when it comes to gift banning. I 
believe some Senators--I know Senator Inouye has some questions, he has 
tried to work hard to make sure there are some ways in which we are 
reasonable about this. But I think what Senator Levin has done is 
extremely important, because the perception in our country is some 
people have the economic wherewithal, they have the political clout, 
they are the heavy hitters, they have too much influence and too much 
say and too many people are left out. That is really what is going on, 
is that people just feel that way.
  And so when they hear about our taking some of these gifts and these 
trips from a variety of different lobbyists, interests, and so forth, 
it just simply sharpens the problem of the distrust of the institution.
  This reform effort on this floor--and I really think it is a unified 
effort on the part of many of us; let us get our cause and effect 
clear--is not a cause of increasing skepticism or cynicism or anger 
about our institution. Quite to the contrary. I think it goes a ways 
toward giving people more faith. It is a symbol.
  Mr. President, if people do not believe in our process, they are not 
going to believe in any of the outcomes of the process. If they are 
going to think that there is a lot of wheeling and dealing and gifts 
and trips and all the rest--which is not for them; they do not get 
these free gifts and trips and all the rest of it, but they think that 
is a part of the culture here --they are not going to believe our 
policies. They have to feel like this process is more accountable. They 
have to feel like it is more open. They have to feel like we are 
focused on the common good or the public good. It is really important 
to people.
  I spoke the other day, and I will not use the name of the 
organization--it was poignant--to a group of doctors. I was scheduled 
to speak at 8:30 and I came in at 8:25. I was early. There was a guy 
who I think was maybe the political director. He was talking to the 
doctors, a couple hundred of them. He said to them--and he was quite 
uncomfortable, I thought--he said, ``With your PAC checks, if you go 
in, if you are in the offices with Senators and Representatives, you 
can't give it to them in their offices, so they might want to step out 
in the hall. They can take it in hall, or they might tell you where to 
send it. But they will take it.''
  And there was this sort of cynical, but also awkward, laughter --
because, if people are worried about the taking, they are also worried 
about the giving.
  So when I spoke, we started talking about all this. As I heard people 
speak, it was clear to me that they felt--and I feel the same way--we 
are trapped in this same kind of awful system where they actually 
thought they needed to come here with checkbooks to make contributions 
to have influence. I did not say that was the case, colleagues. I am 
just telling you that is the perception, that mix of money and 
politics, that idea that some people are here, they have access, they 
have the resources, they are heard, but too many of us are not. That is 
really what this is about.
  I say to my colleagues--and I conclude because I promised to be 
brief--that I do think the political ground has shifted under our feet. 
Some of us--I looked at Senator Feingold--some of us who are new here 
have a lot to learn. And we learn from all of our colleagues, Democrats 
and Republicans alike. But I also think there are some things that we 
know pretty well. One of them, I would argue, is that good-government 
reform, which once upon a time people in politics were cynical about 
and said that is just a bunch of goo-goos, it will go away, it really 
does not matter, people really care about those bread and butter 
economic issues--not any longer, Mr. President. Not any longer.
  These issues of good government, these issues of good public service, 
these issues of ethics, these issues of accountability, these issues of 
people feeling like we truly represent them, these have become the 
central issues in American politics.
  So I hope when we debate the Levin proposal--some of us have some 
amendments which we think strengthen it, but we agree with so much that 
is in there--that our colleagues will not come to the floor with 
amendments that obviously weaken it. You are making a big mistake. You 
are making a big mistake. Because if we do that, people once again will 
reach the conclusion that we are not really serious about making our 
own process open and accountable and working. If that is the conclusion 
they reach, then I think it adds to the very problem all of us are 
worried about, which is this denigration of public service which we all 
believe in. I hope my colleagues will support this very important 
reform effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I commend and thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 
Senator Levin, for drafting this underlying substitute amendment. It 
does strengthen in many ways the bill that we had originally 
introduced.
  The substitute amendment allows us to address a subject that we have 
all said today is very important, both to Congress and the American 
public. It finally reforms the way in which Congress deals with free 
travel, entertainment, meals, and various gifts that are offered to 
Members and their staffs each year from individuals and organizations 
that seek access and influence in the U.S. Congress.
  I just remind everyone, of course, the current gift rules allow 
Members of Congress and their staffs to accept gifts worth up to $250 
from one source during a year, and that does not include in that limit 
any gifts under $100. I think this creates the potential for conflicts 
of interest and the appearance of impropriety.
  My sense, as was certainly eloquently stated by Senator Wellstone, is 
that this is part of the reason that the public's confidence in 
Congress has fallen to dangerously low levels. The recent media 
accounts concerning various trips and recreational outings paid for by 
lobbyists and their organizations, I really do believe have fanned the 
public's discontent and have helped spawn an even greater sense of 
cynicism towards this institution.
  I know this firsthand. I hold town meetings and listening sessions 
almost every week in Wisconsin. Every weekend, people come up to me as 
they go home and say, ``How in the world can you guys get away with 
going on these trips? How can that be the rule even if hardly anyone 
does it?'' As a result of the media coverage, the sense is this is a 
common practice. To put it mildly, I think this new level of skepticism 
does not serve the public interest and can only damage the political 
processes of our great democracy.
  Thanks to the efforts of my good friends from Michigan, New Jersey 
and Minnesota, we can take a major step toward addressing this problem 
today, and I thank them all for their perseverance on the issue.
  I say this because it has been almost a year since the Senate passed 
the much-needed Lobbyist Disclosure Act of 1993 and Senator 
Lautenberg's resolution which expressed the sense of the Senate that 
the full Senate would consider, during this session, changes in the way 
Members and staff are allowed to accept gifts, meals, and travel 
similar to the restrictions currently applicable to executive branch 
officials. Then my friend from New Jersey followed up on that 
resolution by introducing S. 885, the Congressional Ethics Reform Act 
of 1993, which would have, among other things, reduced the gift limits 
along the lines applicable to the executive branch, setting the new 
single gift limit at $20 with a $50 limit from any one source. I was 
pleased to be a cosponsor of that and to be able to submit some 
testimony at the bill's hearing.
  It is almost a year now since this body has passed that resolution, 
and it is too bad it has taken this long. But if we act today, we can 
make good on that promise. I think it is important that we do act today 
so the American people do not conclude that this body only pays lip 
service to institutional reform.
  I did come here recently, as the Senator from Minnesota indicated. 
Maybe I came here a little too optimistic that reform can be achieved. 
I remember when I first arrived here last year--after an unexpected 
victory, but a victory nonetheless--I came here thinking that we would 
have a real reform effort, that people here would actually listen to 
the message that is being sent to us across the country. And that 
message is real simple. People do want us to change the way we do 
business here in Washington. People perceive that Congress has to do 
more to cut its ties to special interests and pay more attention to the 
everyday concerns of the people that sent us here in the first place.
  At first I was encouraged. We did pass a campaign finance reform bill 
early in the session. The measure was not as tough as I would have 
liked, but it still created some meaningful change in an area that is 
desperate for overhaul in the campaign finance area. We also passed the 
Lobbyist Disclosure Act, which included a comprehensive gift disclosure 
provision, thanks to the efforts of my friend from Minnesota. And the 
overwhelming margin by which that resolution passed made me believe we 
would be able to very quickly enact this gift ban.
  However, we are here today on May 4, 1994, not May 4, 1993, with a 
campaign finance reform bill, which passed both the House and the 
Senate, mired in a quagmire of disagreement in an upcoming conference 
and embroiled in a potential debate here today between those who seek 
meaningful reform and those who actually want to weaken the underlying 
measure we have put forward. It is too bad we cannot just pass this on 
a unanimous vote. I think we should be able to do that.
  How many editorials and articles will we have to read and how many 
television exposes will we have to watch and have recounted to us by 
our constituents before we implement these reforms? Do we always have 
to legislate by a last-ditch approach, waiting for a serious scandal of 
some sort before we take action and implement some change? The American 
people are fed up with some of the ways of Washington, and it is time 
to act rather than react.
  When I watched, as a State legislator, some of the discussion about 
the perks in Washington--the House bank issue, the issue concerning 
haircuts, and others--I obviously sensed that the public was concerned. 
I believe this one, the gift practice, dwarfed all the others. I have 
even had the opportunity to refer to this as ``The mother of all 
perks,'' because the potential under the current gift rule is enormous 
if a person is willing to abuse it. And the public perceives that.
  Some will argue, as we have certainly heard on the floor today, that 
the restrictions and disclosure requirements contained in the Levin 
substitute amendment and other amendments are too tough and they are 
just going to be impossible to implement. They will argue that these 
rules would hinder their work and the work of their staffs and are 
unnecessary, since the gifts, meals and travel that are allowed under 
the current system do not provide special interests with any unique 
access and do not influence their legislative decisionmaking in any 
way. We heard claims almost exactly like that on the floor today in 
response to the questions stemming from concerns over the difficulty we 
would have complying with the rules pertaining to this.
  I suggest we look to my own State, the State of Wisconsin, which has 
had for many, many years an even stricter set of rules for guidance for 
its members of the legislature. I served for 10 years as a Wisconsin 
State Senator. I served in a legislative body that simply prohibited 
the acceptance of anything of value from a lobbyist or an organization 
which employs a lobbyist. In Wisconsin you cannot even accept a cup of 
coffee from a lobbyist. It does not take a Philadelphia attorney, as 
the Senator from Louisiana suggested, to figure that one out. You just 
cannot do it. You want it? You just have to pay your own way.
  My experience and the experience of every member of the Wisconsin 
legislature has been that this total ban works. It led me, when I came 
here, to adopt on my own an office ethics policy which combined the 
most restrictive elements of the Wisconsin law and the current Senate 
rules.
  I did not put out a news release on it. I just did it quietly because 
I was comfortable with that.
  I also sensed, given all the discussion of the previous year in the 
public, that this change was inevitable, not just for Wisconsin, not 
just for Minnesota, which recently enacted these rules, but this change 
is inevitable for our Federal Government. The executive branch actually 
has led the way, as opposed to the Congress, on this.
  The State of Wisconsin has a well-deserved national reputation for 
clean government, in part because of its State ethics laws which 
include a total gift ban. Sometimes the State is described as ``squeaky 
clean.'' That is something of which we are proud. I am sorry that is 
not a term that has been applied to the Congress very often in recent 
years. That might not even be fair or accurate with regard to the 
actual conduct of Members, but it is clearly unfortunate for the 
institution, if that is the perception.
  The policy that we implemented for our office essentially bans all 
acceptance of things of value. Specifically, as under Wisconsin law, 
individuals employed in my office, including myself, paid staff, 
fellows and interns, simply cannot accept food, drink, transportation, 
lodging or a thing of pecuniary value from a lobbyist or an 
organization that employs a lobbyist, or food, drink, transportation, 
lodging, employment, or any item or service of more than nominal value 
from any individual if it is offered because of that person's public 
position.
  As I said before, critics of this amendment and the rules complain 
that it will result in some overwhelming amount of paperwork and 
administrative work which can ultimately take away from the time that 
Members of the Senate spend on their legislative duties.
  My own experience in Wisconsin, and since I have been in the Senate, 
is that that is not the case. As of today, my office has logged over 
585 gifts that have been sent up to us and declined or donated to 
charities. I can assure you that our policy has neither interfered with 
my legislative responsibilities or the responsibilities of any member 
of my staff, nor created any undue administrative burdens. In fact, 
since there is no food laying around the office, there is less time 
spent eating food and, I am told, more time working. I do not know if I 
totally believe that.
  So I would again like to thank Senator Levin for his leadership and 
hope we can strengthen his amendment. I will do all I can to make sure 
the strongest measure is enacted in this Congress. Restrictions 
included in this amendment are, however, a significant step toward 
reducing the opportunity for potential conflicts of interest and the 
negative perception of Congress.
  So I hope my colleagues will heed the voices and message coming from 
across the country outside of the beltway demanding that we end this 
aspect of business as usual. I ask the body to support any efforts to 
strengthen the Levin substitute as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have great affection, great admiration 
for my colleagues. They are all good men and good women. I am certain 
that the procedure we are now following is being carried out with the 
best of intentions. I should confess to all of you that--and I am 
rather embarrassed to do so--I do not golf; I have never golfed in my 
life. I do not play tennis. I hoped I could. The last time I was in a 
stadium to watch a baseball game was in 1960 when we had a team called 
the Senators. I have seen the Redskins play twice.
  So from a personal standpoint, it means very little to me about these 
golfing games or tennis matches or basketball games and football games. 
But I am concerned about my work and my relationship with the people I 
serve.
  For example, I am privileged to be the chairman of the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, and I have been chairman of that committee now for 7 
years. I take pride in the fact that I am the first chairman to visit 
all parts of the United States. I have been above the Arctic Circle on 
two occasions. No chairman has ever gone there. I have visited tribes 
all over the United States--in the Plains, in the Northwest, in the 
Southwest, the East and the South. I must tell you that these Indian 
brothers and sisters of ours are most grateful for any visit that a 
Member of Congress might make.
  As part of their culture and tradition, they provide gifts. Mr. 
President, these are not gifts that are purchased from Lord & Taylor or 
Bergdorf Goodman. These are gifts made by them: a basket, a small rug, 
a piece of pottery.
  I cannot honestly say that they are my friends in the real sense of 
the word because this is our first meeting, but they go through great 
ceremony. Am I supposed to stop the chief and say, ``Chief, how much is 
this pottery worth?'' I have no idea what they are worth. If I had to 
guess, I would think that the Navajo rug that was presented to me is 
maybe worth hundreds of dollars, but I know it was made by an old lady 
there who said it took her 6 months to make it for me.
  Then I have the privilege of serving the finest people in the United 
States, the people of Hawaii. As part of our tradition long 
established--long before the coming of Captain Cook--there are 
greetings. Whenever you greet a stranger or friend, you present him 
with flowers, flower leis. If you should visit us in Hawaii, someone 
might greet you with a flower lei. Hardly a day goes by when we do not 
have visitors from Hawaii visiting the Nation's Capital and they bring 
with them flowers, leis.
  Mr. President, you know and everyone knows that these things are not 
free. They have carried them all across the country. Am I supposed to 
ask them, ``How much is that worth? If it is worth $20, I can't take it 
from you.'' I would be insulting them, and I would be insulting myself.
  I know that this law is going to pass. Some form of reform bill will 
pass. But I want to know what I should do because I do not want to 
break the law.
  I think what we are doing to ourselves is a strange type of 
masochism. Pretty soon, we will be telling the people of the world by 
resolution that all Members of Congress are crooks. Essentially we are 
saying that--we cannot be trusted.
  But I want to know from those who are authors of these measures how 
far I can go. Can I receive a gift from grateful Indians? Can I receive 
a flower lei from my constituents? If I am in a hospital, should I 
return the flowers that come to my room? What about Christmas? Mr. 
President, many of the gifts we receive are from strangers from all 
parts of the United States. They just want to express their gratitude 
for something you have done. Are we supposed to return them, or are we 
supposed to send them a card and say, ``Will you fill out the slot 
here: How much is this worth?''
  There are many questions--maybe they are not serious--but it is part 
of my work. I do not wish to insult my fellow Americans, and I do not 
wish to insult my colleagues and myself.
  So I hope we know what we are doing, Mr. President.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 1674

(Purpose: To modify the gift provisions and provide enhanced penalties 
  for violations of the gift rule and for violations of Senate rules 
             subject to reprimand, and for other purposes)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Johnston, 
Senator Dole and Senator Inouye, I send an amendment to the desk in the 
nature of a substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself, Mr. 
     Johnston, Mr. Dole and Mr. Inouye, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1674.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. PENALTIES.

       ``(1) Any Senator, officer, or employee who receives a 
     third reprimand pursuant to the provisions of subsection 
     (a)(2) shall--
       ``(A) if the individual is a Senator, be--
       ``(i) expelled from the Senate if an expulsion resolution 
     is agreed to pursuant to paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) barred for 10 years from lobbying in the Senate; and
       ``(B) if the individual is an officer or employee, be--
       ``(i) dismissed; and
       ``(ii) barred for 10 years from lobbying in the Senate.
       ``(2) Not later than 5 session days after a Senator is 
     reprimanded a third time, the Senate shall consider and 
     dispose of a resolution of expulsion with respect to such 
     Senator.''.
       (b) Gift Violations.--Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of 
     the Senate is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``5.(a) Any Member, officer, or employee who violates this 
     rule shall be subject to a fine of up to 3 times the value of 
     the improper gift. The fine shall be levied by the Select 
     Committee on Ethics and shall be payable to the general fund 
     of the Treasury.
       ``(b) The name of an individual fined pursuant to 
     subparagraph (a) and the amount of any fine shall be 
     published in the Congressional Record.''.

     SEC. 2. GIFT LIMITS.

       (a) In General.--Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate is amended--
       (1) in paragraph 1(a) by striking ``more than the minimal 
     value as established by section 7342(a)(5) of title 5 United 
     States Code, or $250, whichever is greater,'' and inserting 
     ``more than a minimal value of $150''; and
       (2) in paragraph 1(b)(2) by striking ``$100'' and inserting 
     ``$75''.
       (b) Rules Committee.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Committee on Rules and Administration, on behalf 
     of the Senate, may accept a gift if the gift does not involve 
     any duty, burden, or condition, or is not made dependent upon 
     some future performance by the United States. The committee 
     is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as are 
     necessary to carry out this subsection.

     SEC. 3. TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS.

       Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by 
     adding after paragraph 2 the following:
       ``2A. (a) Necessary travel-related expenses as defined by 
     paragraph 2(c), to the extend limited by subparagraph (c), 
     are not prohibited by this rule in connection with meetings, 
     speaking engagements, fact finding trips, and similar events 
     related to the official duties of the Member, officer, or 
     employee if--
       ``(1) the expenditure covers the cost of the trip for a 
     period of not more than--
       ``(A) 3 consecutive days (excluding travel days) in the 
     case of domestic travel and 7 consecutive days (excluding 
     travel days) in the case of international travel: and
       ``(B) 24 hours before or after such person's actual 
     participation in the event in the case of domestic travel or 
     48 hours before or after such person's actual participation 
     in the event in the case of international travel; and
       ``(2) the Member, officer, or employee has caused the 
     following information to be published in the Congressional 
     Record in advance of the travel (unless advance publication 
     is not possible because the travel arrangements cannot be 
     made in time for the information to be published while the 
     Senate is in session or for other good reason (in which case 
     the information shall be provided in advance of the travel to 
     the Secretary of the Senate who shall make the information 
     available to the public immediately and shall cause the 
     information to be published in the next Congressional 
     Record)):
       ``(A) The name of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(B) The dates and itinerary of such travel.
       ``(C) A statement of the purposes of such travel.
       ``(D) The identity of the party making the expenditure.
       ``(b) The requirements of subparagraph (a)(1) may be waived 
     in exceptional circumstances if the Member, officer, or 
     employee obtains a written statement from the Select 
     Committee on Ethics of the Senate that approves the waiver 
     and explains the justification for the waiver. That committee 
     shall cause the statement to be published in the 
     Congressional Record in advance of the travel (unless advance 
     publication is not possible because the waiver is granted at 
     a time when the Senate is not in session or for other good 
     reason (in which case the committee shall, in advance of the 
     travel, provide a copy of the statement to the Secretary of 
     the Senate who shall make the information available to the 
     public immediately and shall cause the statement to be 
     published in the next Congressional Record)).
       ``(c) Necessary travel-related expenditures are limited to 
     expenditures for a Member, officer, or employee's 
     transportation, lodging, conference fees and materials, and 
     meals, including reimbursement for necessary transportation 
     whether or not such transportation occurs within the periods 
     described in subparagraph (a)(1), but do not include 
     expenditures for--
       ``(1) recreational activities, such as greens fees, ski 
     lift tickets, tennis court time, theater tickets, tickets to 
     sporting events, and similar items (except as provided in 
     subparagraph (e)); or
       ``(2) entertainment, other than that provided in connection 
     with meals offered as an integral part of the event.
       ``(d) Except as provided in subparagraph (e), an event the 
     activities of which are substantially recreational shall not 
     be considered to be directly related to the official duties 
     of a Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(e) A Member, officer, or employee may receive payment or 
     reimbursement for expenses, including travel, in connection 
     with a charitable event if the expenses are approved as 
     provided in subparagraph (a)(2).''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today in my capacity as vice 
chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee to discuss the issue before us.
  I think every member of the Ethics Committee is proud to be there and 
honored to serve this institution in a role that we have been chosen 
for by our respective leaders.
  Although little of what we do is seen by the public, or even by our 
fellow Senators, I can tell you that each committee member has devoted 
countless hours of their time to fulfilling the responsibilities that 
have been entrusted to us.
  These were hours, Mr. President, that we might have spent legislating 
or visiting with constituents or studying issues or being with our 
families and loved ones. Instead, this effort has gone into the work of 
the Ethics Committee.
  Now, Members who have never served on the Ethics Committee--and I 
note that none of the principal sponsors of the gift ban bill have ever 
served on the committee--cannot fully appreciate what our work entails 
and how much time it consumes. Most of our time, Mr. President, is not 
spent on matters involving grave ethical misconduct, breaches of Senate 
rules, or any kind of improper behavior for that matter. You would 
never know it by watching the tabloid TV shows or reading most 
newspaper editorials, but the truth is--the truth is--that nearly every 
Member of this body is profoundly ethical and bends over backwards to 
avoid even the appearance of impropriety. And for that reason, the 
committee's time is spent not on enforcing the rules but explaining 
them--explaining them--to Members and helping them comply with every 
nuance. That is under today's rules.
  In fact, I am sure there is not an editorial board in the country 
that works as hard at policing its conduct and avoiding conflicts of 
interest as we do in the Senate.
  Now, to tell you the truth, Mr. President, most of what this involves 
is not exactly high-level, mentally stimulating work. The vast majority 
of our time at the committee, especially for the chairman and me, is 
spent deciding whether a Senator should be able to accept a native 
American buffalo vest, or a silverplate coffee pot from Hungary, or an 
ugly glass award from the National Association of Ugly Glass Award 
Makers. Instead of deciding whether our health care system should be 
single payer or managed competition, members of the Ethics Committee 
get to decide whether a plaque should be considered an award or a 
suitable memento. Instead of spending time on welfare reform, committee 
members spend time determining whether tickets to the upcoming Barbra 
Streisand concert should be valued at the box office price or the 
scalper price.
  That is not because, Mr. President, we look for arcane nit-picking 
issues like these on which to waste our time. We deal with these 
questions because our colleagues ask us to. These are the kinds of 
questions that are coming in routinely to the committee under today's 
restrictions which some would argue are quite severe; others would 
argue they are not, I suppose. As I have said, nearly every Member of 
this body takes great pains to follow both the letter and the spirit of 
the Senate rules, and it is our job to give them guidance on what the 
rules mean and how they are to be applied.
  That is what the Ethics Committee does with most of its time. It is a 
worthy endeavor, and we are all proud to be a part of it. I know that 
every member of the committee, despite our occasional protests to the 
contrary, believes that this is a necessary function and someone must 
carry it out.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, it is deeply troubling to this 
Senator to see this body engaging in ritual acts of self-flagellation 
as if in penance for sins not committed--penance for sins not 
committed.
  It troubles me, as it should every other Member who venerates the 
institution of the U.S. Senate, to see it trivialized and trashed by 
outside people who live from press conference to press conference, 
people whose principal contribution to public discourse is fundraising 
and hate mail. It should trouble every Senator who strives to conduct 
himself or herself in a professional and ethical manner to be slapped 
across the face with the insinuation that he or she has somehow been 
bought by a cheap bottle of wine at Christmas, or a crabcake sandwich, 
or a pitcher of beer, or an honorary plaque.
  Mr. President, let those with something to declare, something to 
confess, come forward. As vice chairman of the Ethics Committee, I 
would like to know which Senators have, in fact, been compromised by 
the gifts and the meals they have received.
  I would remind my colleagues that if you do have information about 
unethical conduct, you are duty bound by Senate rules to bring it to 
the Ethics Committee's attention. I can assure you that we will keep 
any information that is provided to us in strictest confidence; that we 
will investigate it fully; and that we will prosecute any act of 
wrongdoing by any Member or staffer to the fullest extent allowed under 
the Senate rules and precedents of the committee. If there is any 
evidence of criminal wrongdoing, whether it is an apparent violation of 
the Hobbs Act, a bribe, or an illegal gratuity, we will forward it 
immediately to the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department 
and cooperate with every aspect of its investigation.
  So, Mr. President, let anyone who has evidence of a Member or a 
staffer of this body being corrupted by a gift, meal or travel they 
have received come forward now. Fess up. Let us hear about it. Let us 
have names, dates, amounts, and actions. It is cheap and easy to 
slander the institution as a whole. In fact, it has become a profitable 
little business for lobbying groups and even politicians. Just hold a 
press conference, give a speech, send out another hysterical 
fundraising letter, ``Congress is for sale to the highest bidder.''
  What I wish to know as vice chairman of the Ethics Committee, is who 
exactly is for sale. Who is for sale? We are here to deal with that, 
and we would be glad to hear any confessions that might be forthcoming 
from any Members who have been bought by a meal or a gift.
  While I am waiting, let me mention another concern I have, as a 
member of the Ethics Committee, with the so-called gift ban bill.
  I have already discussed how much time the committee spends on 
completely trivial questions over gifts under the existing rules. If 
either the original version or the substitute of S. 1935 were to pass 
this body, the Ethics Committee would do nothing but interpret, explain 
and administer the gift rules of the Senate. It is no exaggeration to 
say that we would probably have to have one Ethics Committee to handle 
gifts, meals, and entertainment, and another separate Ethics Committee 
to handle everything else.
  Earlier in the discussion, I noted on the other side there were some 
comments about how big the Ethics staff would have to be. I can tell 
you as somebody who is familiar with the Ethics Committee process and 
the size of the current staff, that if this is passed, every single 
Senate office will, indeed, as Senator Johnston has suggested, have to 
have a full-time ethics lawyer on staff. And the Ethics Committee will 
have to triple the size of its own staff to deal with all of this.
  In addition, based on the muddled and contradictory answers provided 
in the discussion--I am not putting down the provider's answers--but 
you just cannot answer that which cannot be answered. I would also 
predict there will be several Members under investigation by the 
committee within weeks of the bill's enactment, for a totally 
accidental breach of the bill's provisions.
  Mr. President, I look, for example, at the original version of S. 
1935, and find exactly 10 pages of definitions, 4 pages of exceptions 
to those definitions, 1\1/2\ pages of actual gift ban, and 15\1/2\ 
pages of exceptions to the ban. Let me add that up for everyone. There 
are just 1\1/2\ pages of ban, and a total of almost 30 pages of 
exceptions, definitions, and qualifications.
  Perhaps I should find comfort in the fact that the original version 
of S. 1935 would ultimately be enforced by the Justice Department and 
not by the Ethics Committee. But actually that is no comfort at all. 
With the prospect of criminal prosecution hanging over their heads, I 
imagine that Senators will be more concerned than ever about each 
little trinket that gets handed to them. They will be lining up in 
front of our door every morning asking whether it is OK to accept a 
sweater that their next door neighbor sewed for their child.
  The chairman and I may as well step down from our committee 
assignments. We will not have time to deal with anything else. 
Unfortunately, Mr. President, the substitute version of S. 1935 dumps 
the whole job directly in the Ethics Committee's lap.
  I am going to analyze in detail some of the specific exceptions 
contained in these gift ban proposals, especially from the point of 
view of how these proposals will complicate the lives of every single 
Senator and staffer.
  Mr. President, I cannot stress enough how these proposals will also 
complicate the mission and compromise the effectiveness of the Senate 
Ethics Committee. And from this Senator's point of view, that is a 
deeply disturbing result, not only for the committee but for this body 
as a whole.
  Six months ago, almost to the day, we had a very difficult, but 
necessary, vote on this floor about whether to enforce an investigative 
decision that had been made unanimously by the Ethics Committee. By an 
overwhelming vote, the Senate affirmed the independent investigative 
powers of the committee and gave the committee what it needed to 
fulfill its responsibilities.
  But if we pass a gift rule that is absurdly complicated and 
impossible to enforce, we will end up trivializing the committee and 
compromising its most vital mission. And that most vital mission, Mr. 
President, is this: To investigate and prosecute real misconduct. That 
is what we ought to be addressing: real misconduct. The committee will 
simply be too busy deciding whether a particular gift meets a 
particular exception, to be able to handle cases involving actual 
corruption.
  Is that how we want to allocate the investigative resources of the 
Ethics Committee?
  More importantly, do we want to devote the best efforts, resources, 
and talents of every Member of this body to passing a crime bill, 
reforming health care and changing welfare as we know it--or are we 
instead going to force each of us to waste endless time determining 
whether a particular meal or trinket fits under the 1\1/2\ pages of 
ban, or under the 30 pages of definitions, exceptions, and 
qualifications?
  Let me give you some specific examples of what I am talking about. 
Senator Johnston has already raised a number of these very effectively. 
These examples are taken principally from the substitute version of S. 
1935, although most of them appear in the original Wellstone version as 
well.
  First, let us deal with the issue of what is a friend? The first 
thing you will have to ask yourself, should this bill pass in its 
present form, is this: Exactly what is a friend? That is a question 
which has engaged philosophers for centuries, has kept Hallmark 
greeting card writers gainfully employed, and will soon occupy much of 
the attention of the Senate Ethics Committee.
  This is not a frivolous question, Mr. President. It is not a 
frivolous question. ``Personal friendship'' is one of some three dozen 
exceptions in the bill which the Ethics Committee will have to 
interpret and apply to countless waiver requests that will be 
submitted.
  Mr. President, the substitute version of S. 1935 is 30 pages long, 
and it applies to both the House and the Senate. The underlying bill is 
even longer, and it covers executive branch officials as well. Both 
versions contain very brief and bold language banning almost everything 
from everybody, especially from nasty, corrupting, un-American 
lobbyists. However, the bulk of both these proposals consist of 
endless--and I repeat ``endless''--exceptions and qualifications to the 
ban.
  I already mentioned that the original version of S. 1935 contains 
1\1/2\ pages of ban, and almost 30 pages of exceptions from definitions 
and exceptions from everything else. The substitute is 30 pages long; 
14 pages apply to the Senate. And of those, 2 pages are the ban, and 
the remaining 12 pages are reams of exceptions--reams of exceptions.
  So what we really have here is 15 percent of tough talking, take-no-
prisoners ban, and 85 percent of hemming and hawing, mumbling-under-
its-breath exceptions. Is that any way to write an ethics rule for the 
Senate?
  Moreover, Mr. President, it will be that 85 percent of mumbled 
exceptions that occupy the Ethics Committee's time and create havoc for 
every single Senator and staff who has to live under this bill--
everybody.
  It is not that these exceptions are without merit. But they highlight 
the problem with the entire bill. This bill will make a lot of honest, 
highly ethical individuals into crooks--in a strict legal sense. I 
repeat: This bill will make a lot of honest, highly ethical, 
individuals into crooks--in a strict legal sense.
  Both versions of S. 1935 are riddled with traps lined with legalistic 
punji sticks poised to impale the careers of anyone who has the 
misfortune of falling into one by accident.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. I yield.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is vice chairman of the Ethics Committee, 
and I would like to ask his opinion on the following facts.
  Under section a(1), it provides that no Member or spouse may 
knowingly accept a gift provided directly or indirectly by lobbyists. 
And it goes on to say in subsection (c), that the following items are 
subject to the restrictions as contained in section a(1). It says, (c), 
a charitable contribution made on the basis of a designation, 
recommendation, or other specification made through a lobbyist by a 
Member.
  I think the Senator would agree with me that if a Senator signed a 
letter asking a lobbyist or asking people who happen to include 
lobbyists to contribute to the United Way, or to the United Negro 
College Fund or to the Sierra club, or whatever, that would be in 
violation.
  Mr. McCONNELL. A clear violation.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Suppose he was asked to be on the letterhead as one of 
the recommending people. Would that not also be in a gray area, or 
would that not be in violation?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The committee would have to make some kind of ruling. 
My assumption is, that would be a violation.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. So in effect, any involvement with charities by 
Senators, whether it is sponsoring a charity, whether it is being the 
honoree of the charity, whether it is using your name on the 
stationery, or being on a sponsoring committee, All of that would 
indirectly be a sponsorship or a recommendation, and if lobbyists were 
invited, you could be hauled up before the Ethics Committee, I would 
think, on the basis of that; do you not agree?

  Mr. McCONNELL. Once again, that is a question the committee would 
have to decide. My first reaction is that, as a practical matter, any 
effort to help those less fortunate would be problematic and could well 
be ruled impermissible.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. So if you wanted to do any charitable activity, on each 
and every thing, even to lending your name to the dinner committee, you 
would get a ruling?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Right. There would be a long line. Anybody that wanted 
to do good, wanted to do anything for any charitable cause, there would 
be a long line outside the Ethics Committee door. Take a number, get in 
line, and we would grapple with it.
  It is my understanding of S. 1935 that it will be practically 
impossible for Members to make an effort, either directly or 
indirectly, to assist worthwhile causes--that is, tax-exempt, 
charitable entities.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. On this definition of ``friend,'' the Senator was going 
into that, and I enjoyed that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am about to go into it further. Go ahead.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Put this into your answer, if you will, because I 
really want to hear about that. Do you not think Senators would want to 
qualify their friend and therefore get a ruling and say, ``I have known 
`old Joe' for 26 years, and we went to college together,'' and sort of 
give a little resume of your relationship with Joe. Do you not expect 
you will be inundated with ``old Joe" requests?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Absolutely. It is interesting. The Senator brings up 
the ``friend'' issue. We looked up the word ``friend'' in the 
dictionary, and the dictionary defines ``friend'' as follows:

       1. A person attached to another by feelings of affection or 
     personal regard. 2. A patron or supporter. 3. A person who is 
     on good terms with another, not hostile. 4. A member of the 
     same nation, or a member of the same party, et cetera.

  When the dictionary uses a word like ``et cetera,'' you know you are 
in trouble. That is the definition of trouble, when in the dictionary 
you are trying to find the definition and they use the word ``et 
cetera.''
  Is that not interesting? A friend could be almost anybody, according 
to the dictionary. But is that the way the Ethics Committee or the 
Justice Department will define who is a friend? We are probably not 
going to call it just anybody. You had better be sure you have the 
right definition, I say to my colleagues, because if you are wrong, if 
you have guessed wrong about ``what is a friend,'' you will be under 
ethical or criminal--depending upon whether the Wellstone provision 
were to prevail--investigation under this bill. If somebody you thought 
was a friend picks up the tab for a Coke and a cheeseburger.
  Well, let us not forget what Harry Truman said: ``If you want a 
friend in Washington, buy a dog.''
  Really, can a lobbyist ever be a friend? Good question. We will be 
wrestling with that one. Perhaps the Hallmark Greeting Card Co. could 
provide suitable guidelines for the Ethics Committee to use when it 
deliberates the universal question: Who is a friend?
  Should we be guided by the theme of the movie ``When Harry Met 
Sally,'' that men and women cannot ever really be just friends? The 
original version of S. 1935 even has a stipulation that gifts given in 
the context of a ``dating relationship,'' are exempt from the ban. 
Well, Mr. President, what is a date? What is a date? Will the Ethics 
Committee be put in charge of deciding whether people are romantically 
involved or not? What evidence should the committee look at? Should we 
ask the parties whether they exchanged a passionate kiss? Or was it 
merely a professional peck? Inquiring minds will want to know.
  I could even imagine a situation where one person thinks he or she is 
in a dating relationship, and the other views it as strictly business. 
What should the Ethics Committee do then? Step in and play guidance 
counselor, and help the parties come to a shared understanding of their 
relationship for the purposes of the Senate gift rule?
  But it is not just relationships that will need to be defined under 
versions of S. 1935. Gifts themselves will have to be defined 
correctly. And the penalty for the wrong answer could be quite severe.
  (Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. For example, I am sure no one here has given much 
thought to the following question: What is a donut? We all know one 
when we see one--maybe. But under the substitute bill, there is a 
specific exemption for ``food or refreshment item of minimal value, 
such as a soft drink, coffee, or a donut, offered other than as part of 
a meal.'' So we have the universal question that has been on the minds 
of men and women for centuries: What is a donut?
  Note that the gift ban exemption includes ``item of minimal value, 
such as * * * a donut.'' Not trusting my own opinion of what a donut 
is, I, once again, consulted the dictionary. The dictionary says with 
regard to the donut:

       1. A small, usually ring-shaped cake of sweetened dough 
     fried in deep fat. 2. Anything shaped like a thick ring.

  So there is Webster on the donut. So far, so good. But what other 
items would meet the ``such as a donut test"? Would a bagel qualify, 
Madam President, under the ``such as a donut'' definition? How about a 
buttered bagel, or a bagel with cream cheese? What if you stick a slice 
of lox on it? A slice of turkey? When is a bagel a sandwich and not a 
donut? These are the universal questions we will be contemplating at 
the committee if this substitute passes.
  What about croissants? Do we ban croissants because they sound 
pretentious, but exempt donuts because they have a nice kind of blue-
collar connotation to them?
  Perhaps this sounds funny. You can laugh all you want now. But if 
this bill passes in its present form, you will soon stop laughing when 
the Ethics Committee decides to investigate you for choosing the wrong 
definition.
  What, Madam President, is a soft drink? It is not in the dictionary, 
I reluctantly report. Does the gift exemption apply only to 
nonalcoholic beverages? Should it include snob appeal drinks like Evian 
and Perrier? What is coffee? Is it just the 70-cent, no-refill cup of 
motor oil from the Senate cafeteria? Are espresso and cappuccino coffee 
under this bill? Or such exotic drinks like cafe latte or Irish coffee? 
These are the universal questions that will occupy our time on the 
committee and will have you frozen with fear, every day, that 
inadvertently you have done something improper under this bill.
  I also urge my colleagues to review section 1(a)(3) of the substitute 
which bans the following:

       Gifts having a value of less than $20 from the same or 
     different sources on a basis so frequent that a reasonable 
     person would be led to believe the Member, officer or 
     employee is using his public office for private gain.
  Now, Madam President, think of all the terms and phrases the Ethics 
Committee will be left to interpret. First, ``so frequent''; second, 
``reasonable''; third, ``led to believe''; fourth, ``using his public 
office for private gain.''
  More importantly, Madam President, I say to Members of the Senate, if 
your interpretation is different from the committee's interpretation, 
you could have your whole career ruined over a handful of items worth 
less than $20. I repeat--you could have your whole career ruined over a 
handful of items worth less than $20. This is reality here. This is 
reality check time on the underlying bill.
  What if you receive three mugs a year with a company's logo? Is that 
too frequent? Or three mugs in an entire 6-year term? How about a box 
of Kentucky bourbon balls every Christmas? Are you sure you will be 
within the rule?
  Now, perhaps someone could define a ``reasonable person'' here. What 
kind of ``reasonable person'' would be led to believe that a Member or 
a staffer was ``using his public office for private gain" by accepting 
a few coffee mugs? What kind of a ``reasonable person"? Ralph Nader. Is 
he a reasonable person?
  I consulted my dictionary. A ``reasonable person,'' Madam President, 
``1, capable of reasoning, rational; 2, in accordance with reason, 
logical; 3, moderate.'' You can see Webster is having a little trouble 
with this. And if Webster is having trouble with it, imagine the 
difficulty we are going to have on the committee.
  You could pull any man or woman off the street these days--Mr. and 
Mrs. John Q. Public--we will call them, and based on the distorted view 
they have been given by the media, they might very reasonably conclude 
we were all using public office for private gain--all of us. Polls 
probably show that a majority of reasonable people think every Senator, 
except maybe their own, usually is ``using public office for private 
gain.''
  How in the world, Madam President, is the Ethics Committee supposed 
to make sense of this? How is any Member or any staffer of the Senate 
supposed to make sense of it--and more importantly, comply with it?
  Now, Madam President, I want to talk about another aspect of this. It 
is extremely important to any of us who have working spouses. The two-
career family is increasingly common in America and in the Senate.
  There is an exemption in the substitute for things we might have 
gotten through our spouses. I had to read this one very carefully, and 
I still cannot tell you exactly what it covers and what it does not. 
Here is the language:

       Benefits resulting from the business or employment 
     activities of the spouse of a Member, officer, or employee if 
     such benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of 
     the official position of such Member, officer, or employee.
  If you are shaking your head out there, I join you. Are we to offend 
our spouses by asking their employers and business associates just 
exactly why they deal with our spouses and why they are inviting us, by 
the way, to a reception? Are they inviting us because of us or because 
of our spouse? We would need to know that.
  Is it not the height of arrogance for us to presume that everything 
in this town revolves around us? A lot of our spouses have another 
life, too. For many of them it does not have a darn thing to do with 
what we do. And the assumption here is that people are inclined to 
treat our spouses differently because of their association with us.
  Should we presume that when a professional associate of our spouse 
orders a good wine at dinner that the person would have opted for the 
cheap house wine if we had not been there? Now that is an important 
question here as we contemplate this thing. If we had not been there, 
would they just have had a cheap house wine? That is the kind of thing 
we will be dealing with on the Ethics Committee. You can be confident 
that we will grapple with that.
  Another provision of the substitute specifically exempts, and this 
has been discussed here earlier, but it is so amusing it is worth 
repeating. I thank my friend from Louisiana for bringing it up. Another 
provision of the substitute exempts ``bequests, inheritances and other 
transfers at death.'' However, Madam President, the exemption does not 
apply to inheritances from dead lobbyists and registered foreign 
agents, you will be relieved to know. It does not apply to dead 
lobbyists and registered foreign agents. Breathe easy. Perhaps the 
assumption is their influence continues even after they have gone off 
to that great reception room in the skies.
  In any case, we may want to add a proviso that Members and staffers 
may not accept inheritances from dead lobbyists and foreign agents 
unless we can be reasonably sure that they have gone to Heaven.
  It is hard to understand this obsession with influence buying from 
beyond the grave. I must of missed some Common Cause expose. Is ``Night 
of the Living Dead Lobbyists'' a coming theatrical release? I cannot 
wait to see this one--scores of dead lobbyists, marching zombie-like 
toward the Capitol, to get one last line item or transition rule. 
Imagine.
  For all the reasons outlined above, I believe that both versions of 
S. 1935 represent completely and totally unworkable, even absurd, 
attempts to deal with the gift issue.
  And it is no laughing matter. They will generate more loopholes, not 
less. They will create more confusion, not less. They will turn honest, 
highly ethical Members into inadvertent crooks. And they will turn the 
Ethics Committee into a full-time gift and meal clearinghouse.
  I say to my colleagues, this is a serious matter. I have made a 
little fun with it here, but this is a serious matter.
  Because of these legitimate concerns, a bipartisan group of Senators, 
including myself, Senator Johnston, Senator Inouye, and the Republican 
leader, have put together what we believe is a workable, reasonable 
alternative.
  Whereas both versions, Madam President, of the gift ban bill amount 
to a blanket indictment of everyone who works here, the substitute 
offered by myself and my friend from Louisiana holds accountable those 
who actually --I repeat, actually--abuse the public trust. It puts on 
notice every staffer, Member, and officer that egregious behavior--
egregious behavior--will have dire consequences.
  Further, it severely lowers the current gift limits to address any 
perception that the present rules are too lenient. And it does indeed 
provide more disclosure to the public.
  Also important, Madam President, and worth noting is what our 
proposal does not do. It does not, Members of the Senate, it does not 
trivialize this body. It does not plant legal landmines that will 
destroy--I repeat, will destroy--the reputation of honest people. We 
ought not to be about trivializing the Senate and destroying the 
reputations of honest people.
  It does not turn the Ethics Committee into Big Brother, micromanaging 
private lives, determining what qualifies for a litany of exemptions 
and deliberating over thousands of waiver requests.
  Perhaps the most important distinction between our gift limit 
alternative and the other bills before us is that it does not assume 
that everyone is guilty just because they work here. I repeat, the 
McConnell-Johnston substitute does not presume that everyone is guilty 
because they work here. Instead, this is what our bill does:
  It contains harsh penalties for violations of the Senate's rules, 
including fines for three times the value of a prohibited gift and 
virtually automatic expulsion from the Senate for any Member or staffer 
who has been issued three reprimands or other punishments of greater 
severity from the Ethics Committee.
  If a Member is subject to three such disciplinary actions, a vote for 
the Member's expulsion would be put immediately before the Senate, in 
accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. Anyone so 
expelled from this body would be barred from lobbying the legislative 
branch for 10 years.
  For each knowing and willful violation of the gift limits and 
disclosure requirements, a Member or a staffer would be punished as 
follows: First, a treble damages fine, three times the value of the 
improper gift, would be assessed. Two, each violation and fine would be 
fully disclosed in the Congressional Record.
  Madam President, I suspect that any staffer who is punished under 
this proposal would probably be terminated immediately. Members would 
have to explain their transgressions at the next election.
  Our alternative also severely ratchets down the gift limits for 
Members and staff without making them so extreme as to be completely 
unworkable.
  The annual aggregate limit on gifts would be reduced from $250 to 
$150 from any one source. As is the case now, Ethics Committee waivers 
could be granted for good cause for gifts over $150, but they would 
have to be disclosed. So we go from $250 down to $150 in that category.
  The present rule is that gifts under $100 in value are not aggregated 
against the limit. That amount would be reduced to $75. The limits, 
Madam President, would apply to all Members, officers, and staff, 
without exception for clerical or secretarial workers. The only--I 
repeat, the only--available exception would be for gifts from spouses 
and immediate family. That is all.
  As in both the original and the substitute versions of S. 1935, there 
is a limited exception for certain necessary travel-related 
expenditures, all of which would have to be disclosed in advance in the 
Congressional Record. Foreign sponsors of trips would have to be 
preapproved by the Ethics Committee, as would any travel event 
recognized for a bona fide charitable purpose.
  Now, there it is, Madam President. That is basically the proposal. A 
tough proposal, harsh on the corrupt--this is important to remember--
harsh on the corrupt, but fair to the honest. Harsh on the corrupt, 
fair to the honest. It is not complicated. It does not contain 12 pages 
of convoluted exemptions, as do the other proposals.
  You do not need to be a lawyer to understand it, unlike the other two 
proposals. In fact, Madam President, I think anyone could read this 
proposal and understand that those who violate the public trust and the 
rules of the Senate will be certain to face the most severe 
consequences, including expulsion. Almost anybody is going to be able 
to read this and figure it out.
  Madam President, there is not any question in my mind that Common 
Cause will not like it, Public Citizen will not like it, and the New 
York Times probably will not like it. They will not like it because it 
is not theirs. And they will not like it because it does not confirm 
their thesis that every Member of the Senate is on the take. That is 
their thesis--that every Member of the Senate is on the take.

  There is one thing you need to know about the different proposals 
before you. Both versions of S. 1935 put the Senate on record as saying 
that, yes, we can all be bought for a little over 20 bucks. That is 
basically what these underlying proposals say. Maybe even less, if it 
is a lobbyist who's buying.
  Moreover, if we pass Wellstone-Lautenberg, or Levin, within a few 
years--and you can write this down, it is a certainty--within a few 
years a lot of honest people will be made to look like crooks. It is a 
certainty. The Ethics Committee will be probing into personal 
relationships, interpreting endless loopholes and exemptions, and be 
compelled to find violations of Senate rules by people who had no 
intention whatsoever--no intention whatsoever--of doing anything 
improper.
  Finally, let me say to those who say we need to march down this grim 
road for the sake of appearances, this is exactly the wrong approach to 
take. Wellstone-Lautenberg or Levin bills will not restore any measure 
of confidence in this institution. Rather, if adopted, they would 
slowly erode whatever prestige remains for the Senate.
  So, Madam President, let me wrap up by saying this about the rules we 
write for this body. If you do not have a moral compass, no ethical 
map--no matter how detailed--will be of any help. All it will do is 
show you the obvious pitfalls to avoid. In fact, it is almost universal 
that when a Member has lost his or her moral compass and is caught 
committing an act of misconduct--and fortunately those situations are 
very, very rare--such a Member will always cite the rules. They will 
invariably seek to justify their improper behavior by demonstrating, 
one way or another, how they managed to stay within the rules.
  I believe most, if not all, Members of this body have a strong moral 
compass, but the more onerous and complicated we make the ethical map, 
the harder it will be for anyone--anyone, no matter how honest and 
ethical--to find their way through it.
  So, in summary, let me say the McConnell-Johnston-Inouye-Dole 
substitute is designed to strengthen penalties for truly egregious 
behavior but not to trivialize and demean the Senate and not to make 
crooks out of honest people who deserve better. That is the crux of the 
substitute offered by my friend from Louisiana and myself. I hope the 
Senate will adopt it at the appropriate time. Frankly, I hope it will 
adopt it overwhelmingly because the self-flagellation needs to come to 
an end.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. MATHEWS. Madam President, let me begin by complimenting my 
colleagues who have made presentations tonight: Senator Levin, Senator 
Cohen, Senator Wellstone, Senator Feingold, Senator Johnston, and 
Senator McConnell. I think there is no question but that each of them 
has stood and spoken to this group from those things in his heart, the 
things that he believes he can best do to serve his constituency during 
his time here in the Senate. I compliment them on the hard work they 
have done.
  As I think most Members of this body know, come November of this 
year, I, unfortunately, will no longer have the privilege of standing 
here discussing a matter or voting on the issues. Perhaps my interest 
might best be served by just sitting down and voting on this issue when 
it comes up. But my conscience will not let me do it. I listened to us 
as we talked. We said things which suggest to me that we have either 
lost faith in the ability of the people who sent us here to judge our 
actions and make an informed judgment about whether we should come 
back, or that we feel we need to pass a law to force ourselves to do 
what is right. You know, if we have reached that point, I do not think 
passing a law is going to help at all.
  Madam President, by midmonth of this year each of us owes the Senate 
Ethics Committee--the body that Senator McConnell is talking about--a 
detailed financial disclosure statement. In that document that we will 
file, we will completely bare our financial holdings, our investment 
income, any gifts that we have received that come within the purview of 
the rules that are in existence, any gratuities, honoraria, any 
charitable donations made in our name--everything. We must report the 
gains and losses of every financial transaction we have made during the 
last year--and I have some I am not very proud of--the ones we made and 
the ones that have been made by our immediate family.
  As a consequence of serving here in the Senate, one of the 
requirements is we are forbidden from drawing any additional earned 
income from any other source. In addition to that, we are compelled to 
reveal personal and sometimes uncomfortable facets of our lives to the 
people of our Nation and to the States, to the press, in fact to any 
bystander who wants to know what we have done during the past year. 
This I accept and this I say is something that each of us ought to be 
willing to do as a consequence of service here.
  But we are being asked by some of this legislation to do more than 
that. We are being asked to renounce ordinary human privacy in some of 
these matters, and I do not know whether we believe, in doing so, we 
will act more honestly or at least assure everyone we are not 
profiteering in office.
  We are here today debating whether the whiff of scandal extends to 
accepting meals and football tickets and theater passes and whether in 
some way we become more noble and trustworthy by renouncing these 
incidentals. You know, at one time or another everyone has been, I 
think, somewhat disturbed by the largess that sometimes flows toward 
holders of high office. This is true whether in business or in 
academics or in government. I realize that the measure intends to 
minimize the misgivings that gifts make us subject to.
  However, I have a couple of misgivings of my own about these 
measures.
  The first has to do with the language and the effect of the measure 
itself, and the second pertains to what I believe are the real concerns 
of the American people about our conduct.
  Overall, these issues are well-intended but a cosmetic attempt to 
erase a perception by banning the objects that foster it. We in the 
Senate know what that perception is, and we know it is ill-considered 
and narrow.
  I believe these measures do more to validate that unworthy cynicism 
than to vanquish it, and that is enough basis for me to resist it. But 
beyond that, I am concerned about the logic-chopping and ambiguities 
that these measures involve.
  If I am reading the language correctly, gifts generally, but more 
precisely meals and such items, arising from personal friendships fall 
outside the embargo of this bill under certain circumstances. 
Apparently, some people think a gift is a true gift if it comes from a 
friend, and it is an incentive to perform favors when it comes from 
someone else. The speakers before me have gone into this much more 
thoroughly than I can.
  Yet, in a job as encompassing as public service, the line between 
personal and professional is not so easily drawn. In office, we meet 
and work with people who share our concerns and commitments, and 
friendships grow from what started as professional contacts.
  Longstanding relationships with our States' business leaders, heads 
of organizations and prominent citizens, frequently exist on personal 
and professional levels. In some cases we have known these people all 
our lives. Many of our lifelong friends have advanced to prominent 
positions in business and society. Now we are in contact through the 
respective positions we hold. They do not cease being friends and 
become suborners because our friendship and our work coincide.
  In any case, the true question is the intent of the giver, and that 
is not something illuminated by legislation. I understand these 
measures permit clients of lobbyists, but not lobbyists, to host 
Members and staff at broadly attended events. I understand also that 
smaller events, so-called bona fide meetings of organizations, are OK, 
provided they do not dish up more than $20 worth of eats.
  It is pretty difficult for me to know how many angels can dance on 
the head of a pin, or whether I have one hair on my forehead, I am 
baldheaded, or just heading in that direction. But I am pretty sure 
that what would be called a broadly attended event in New York or in 
the District of Columbia, we in Tennessee would never qualify for that. 
I am also pretty sure that if we started to try to find something to 
eat in this town for $20, I do not know where we could find it. I have 
checked. I notice the town is a little bit expensive.
  In part, these measures succumb to a mistaken notion of what and who 
lobbyists are. I know it is popular to portray these representatives as 
uptown smoothies and $1,000 alligator shoes. I have seen some of those 
around here, too. There are a few of those around. But these lobbyists 
are vastly outnumbered--in my office, at any rate--by the plain folks 
who come to us on behalf of children's hospitals, and women's shelters, 
and schoolteachers, and small businesses, you name it, Madam President. 
These are the people with whom I come into contact day by day.
  To give you an idea, before putting together these remarks, I looked 
at my appointment calendar to see who had been in and with whom I had 
been associating recently. As I indicated on another occasion, the 
largest employer of our State is located right on the Virginia-North 
Carolina border. Those people have a business there that is important 
to me, very important to me, because they employ thousands and 
thousands of Tennesseans. When they come to town, I want to be here to 
greet them. If they have a problem, I want to help them. But I do not 
feel that I am being compromised if I have dinner, or if I have lunch, 
or if I spend an hour in my office with the company that employs 10,000 
Tennesseans. Whether or not I do it in the office, or whether or not I 
do it somewhere else, I do not think it makes a lot of difference.
  I also see on my calendar people from the Tennessee Association of 
Realtors; the Tennessee Libraries Association. They are here because 
they want this Congress to continue that library appropriation that was 
left out of the budget that was submitted by the White House.
  The Tennessee National Guard is here from time to time. And this past 
week I had the Chamber of Commerce of my largest city of Memphis, and 
the city of Chattanooga.
  Madam President, let us not fool ourselves. These people are 
lobbyists, too. They have been chosen by their companies and their 
charities and cities to come and talk to Congress. They bring us 
information and perspective on what is happening in our States.
  I think the real question here and the real question we are dealing 
with on this matter, is what standards do the people of our States, do 
the people of this country, expect us to meet? Speaking for Tennessee, 
I believe that the people of Tennessee are not outraged by my having 
meals with people who discuss the businesses, the communities, and the 
workers, and the interest of Tennessee. I believe they expect me and my 
staff to meet with these people, a good majority of whom are 
Tennesseans.
  I believe they expect me to set standards of decorum about gifts and 
gratuities, not erect a wall of inaccess and impenetrability out of a 
preoccupation with propriety. Most of all, I believe the biggest part 
of their concern is knowing exactly with whom I am dealing, who gives 
me what, and whether my votes and my advocacy have been influenced.
  In short, I believe the focus of our efforts lies in disclosing gifts 
and gratuities, not disallowing them altogether.
  I understand a portion of this measure specifies additional rules of 
disclosure, and perhaps that avenue bears more attention. I make my 
daily schedule available to the press, and it is published by a number 
of them. Perhaps I should also make available an evening and weekend 
schedule of nonfamily events. But the point is, I trust the people of 
Tennessee to make a fair judgment about my votes if I tell them with 
whom my duties bring me into contact.
  I repeat, I believe disclosure is the basis on which the people judge 
our conduct, not whether we are denying ourselves normal social 
contact.
  We also should remember that Senators function under an eyeball 
trained more finely upon us than other members of the society. We have 
a nimble and inquisitive media eager to draw our bounds of propriety; 
public interest groups and other witnesses infer our loyalties and 
motives; many people are counting decimal points in the degrees of 
contact we have with others.
  My capable colleagues, Senators Danforth, and the Chair, spoke 
eloquently on this point a couple of weeks ago, and I commend their 
remarks in the Congressional Record as a definitive reading.
  I would add this to what they said: We earn and deserve the 
confidence of the American people when we make independent decisions on 
the merits of issues. We earn no one's respect when we cast votes with 
heads turned over our shoulders to gauge other people's interpretation 
of our motives. And in the final tally, Madam President, I ask if this 
is the kind of thing by which the American people really judge us.

  I believe it does not address the pressing concerns of the American 
people. Millions of our fellow Americans are homeless or jobless; our 
cities are troubled; our bridges and streets crumbling; our deficit 
remains a multigenerational peril. We face tough problems and tough 
decisions that will affect all Americans. In the scheme of things, an 
issue that pertains to Congress alone stands very small.
  The way to avoid impropriety is to exercise individual judgment about 
what is proper and to face the consequences if others believe it is 
not. The way to earn the regard of the American people is for us to act 
with regard to their needs and their future. And the way to reaffirm 
the purpose we bring to public office is to resist the public cynicism 
to which this measure reacts.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair. I relinquish the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the amendment of Senators McConnell and 
Johnston which is before us really represents business as usual. The 
trips, the so-called recreational trips, which partly benefit charities 
but also significantly benefit Members who go with their spouses for 
recreation--golf, tennis, what have you--and are then filmed with 
lobbyists or avoiding being filmed with lobbyists, those recreational 
trips would continue. Unlimited meals paid for by lobbyists, they would 
continue. Tickets, you could still get the tickets, lobbyists could 
still give you tickets to the Redwings--that is my hometown --to the 
Redskins games. That would continue. It is basically a business-as-
usual amendment which we are being offered by the Senator from Kentucky 
and the Senator from Louisiana.
  Now, in order to try to persuade us to continue to do business as 
usual, they look at some elements of the substitute amendment. And, by 
the way, although they frequently confuse the substitute amendment with 
the original Lautenberg and others bill, it is very, very different. In 
fact, it is dramatically different, and I outlined those differences in 
my opening remarks.
  But the language that they point to frequently is language that comes 
from the executive branch rules. The executive branch has a $20 rule, a 
$20 gift rule. Can we live with a $20 gift rule with the exceptions 
indicated? I think we can.
  Some may think there should be fewer exceptions, or more exceptions. 
Fine, you can try to argue about exceptions. But basically, we can live 
with a tighter gift rule which eliminates the lobbyist-paid meals.
  Restaurants around this town say they need these meals in order to 
survive. My gosh, what a terrible indictment that would be if the 
restaurants in this town need lobbyists to pay for our meals in order 
to survive. Think about that one. The Kennedy Center is going to fold 
unless lobbyists can continue to give tickets to Members for events at 
the Kennedy Center? Is that what the Kennedy Center survival depends 
on? What a terrible indictment that is.
  So the argument for the business-as-usual amendment which is being 
offered as the alternative to our substitute is mainly to look at the 
language of our substitute and to say that language is too tough or 
that language is ambiguous. But in case after case after case that 
language comes from the executive branch rules which they live with. 
The executive branch has a $20 rule with which they live. It has not 
created all these horrendous problems which were held before us by the 
Senator from Kentucky.
  Let me just give you a couple examples of this under the executive 
branch rules:

       An employee may accept a gift under circumstances which 
     make it clear that the gift is motivated by family 
     relationship or personal friendship rather than the position 
     of the employee.

  That is the same rule we are proposing for Congress. The executive 
branch lives with the personal friendship exemption for gifts over $20, 
but we cannot? They can. We cannot?
  The executive branch says that there is an exception to the $20 rule 
``if the gift results from the business or employment activities of an 
employee's spouse when it is clear that such benefits have not been 
offered or enhanced because of the employee's official position.''
  The executive branch exception, they live with it--an exception that 
is almost verbatim the same as ours. Their rules says ``results from 
the business or employment activities of an employee's spouse when it 
is clear that such benefits have not been offered or enhanced because 
of the employee's official position.''
  That is OK for the executive branch but we cannot live with it? It is 
going to create all kinds of problems for us to have that kind of 
exception to the $20 gift rule?
  Why are we so different? Why are our employees so different from the 
executive branch employees? Why is our staff so different from the 
executive branch staff that they have to be taken out by lobbyists to 
lunch but the executive branch staff cannot? Why that kind of a double 
standard? How do we justify that? Our staff has to be wined and dined 
by lobbyists but the executive branch staff cannot be? We do not think 
that creates a credibility problem back home? Do we really believe that 
when we take recreational trips for 2 or 3 days with our spouses, where 
lobbyists have access to us, when we are there primarily for 
recreational purposes and some of the money also ends up going to a 
charity, that that does not create problems for us as an institution?
  Now, if I went to such an event, I might be able to survive it 
politically and get elected back home. The argument is we will disclose 
it.
  It is already disclosed. Those trips are already disclosed. But over 
and over again we have the media presenting those trips to the public, 
substantially recreational events where we are going with our spouses 
for 2 or 3 days, where we are being wined and dined by lobbyists at 
those events and, yes, half the proceeds go to a charity, and that is 
displayed in front of the public. We are saying we want to continue 
that because they will be disclosed and then people will judge us 
individually at election time?
  We may be able to survive that individually. Maybe our people will 
accept that. But does that not do damage to this institution? I think 
it does, and I think we have to do better. I think we can do better.
  But if the amendment before us passes, it is business as usual on 
those kinds of trips. It is business as usual on the lobbyists paying 
for the meals. Sure, it tightens up the penalties in some extraordinary 
ways, but it does not really address the problem, which is that our 
gift rules are too loose.
  Now, it draws the line at $75, not $20. The rhetoric is that the 
people who offer the $20 executive branch-type approach, that we are 
suggesting somehow or other that people here are for sale for $20. By 
that logic, which I do not buy, then, the proponents of the amendment 
before us are suggesting we are for sale for $75. I do not believe that 
either. We draw a line, the $20 line, where the executive branch has 
drawn the line, and we can live with it. They live with it. We can live 
with it. We should not have a double standard in this regard.
  Over and over again the language which is being pointed to in our 
substitute is the language in the executive branch rules.
  Now, the Rules Committee has a rule currently, rule 35, which relates 
to gifts, which says that a waiver can be granted by the Rules 
Committee in an unusual case.
  Now, how is that for vagueness? We try to specify what the exceptions 
will be to the $20 rule. We talk about personal friendship. And we, by 
the way, say exactly what personal friendship is. We talk about family 
relationship. We talk about broadly attended events. We specify the 
exception.
  That then becomes the target for the supporters of the pending 
Johnston-McConnell amendment, who want basically to keep business as 
usual and attack the substitute because we specify exceptions. And 
their alternative has the broadest, vaguest, exception of all, ``an 
unusual case.'' Look up the words unusual case in the dictionary. Yet, 
that is held up as the model for how we should proceed on gifts, that 
the Ethics Committee ought to be given a general standard, ``unusual 
case'', and interpret that. And the Ethics Committee spends a good deal 
of its time right now interpreting what is an ``unusual case'' in order 
to give a waiver. We try to give some guidance as to what is an 
exception to the $20 rule, and I think the guidance basically is good. 
It is based on executive branch guidance, which has worked.
  Madam President, I also was intrigued by this idea that, if you get a 
third reprimand from the Ethics Committee, you can be expelled or 
barred from lobbying after you leave. As I understand it--I would be 
happy to be corrected by my friend from Kentucky --the Ethics Committee 
does not have the authority to reprimand anybody even for the first 
time, much less for the third time.
  I do not know. Perhaps I could have the attention of my friend from 
Kentucky just for one question because he is vice chairman of the 
Ethics Committee and in a good position to clarify this issue.
  As I read the recommendation for revisions to the procedures of the 
Senate Select Committee on Ethics, the report of the Ethics Committee 
of March 1994 says: ``Under Senate resolution 338, the Ethics Committee 
has the power to impose a sanction such as reprimand only with the 
agreement of the individual Senator, officer, or employee.'' In other 
words, you cannot be reprimanded without your agreement under the 
current rules. And, if that in fact is accurate--and my friend from 
Kentucky is in a better position to indicate whether or not that is 
accurate--the way I read the report, their amendment would state that 
after three reprimands you are booted out of here. It makes no sense, 
because even the first reprimand apparently is not permitted under the 
current set of rules.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield, that provision refers only 
to what the Ethics Committee can do on its own.
  Mr. LEVIN. The reprimands, I assume, would be Ethics Committee 
reprimands under your amendment. The Senator means the Senate itself 
would have to reprimand somebody three times before they are 
automatically booted out.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Of course, a constitutional provision cannot be waived 
by what we do here anyway. But the Ethics Committee would automatically 
recommend expulsion. The full Senate would have to make that 
determination under the Constitution.
  Mr. LEVIN. My question is can the Ethics Committee reprimand a Member 
without that Member's consent?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Ethics Committee, I am told by staff, can on its 
own recommend a reprimand. The Senate has to ratify it. It simply has 
to be ratified by the full Senate.
  Mr. LEVIN. But then the Ethics Committee cannot do the reprimanding, 
and, therefore, under the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, if 
someone is reprimanded three times by the Senate, they would be 
automatically expelled. They would have to be reprimanded three times 
by the Senate, not by the Ethics Committee.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. But that would be subject to the Constitution.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is not what I would call tough enforcement, which is 
apparently the theme of the amendment, since you would have to be 
reprimanded three times by the Senate. I doubt that the Senate has 
reprimanded anybody----
  Mr. McCONNELL. You could, of course, be expelled by the Senate on 
one, if there were a criminal offense or something that the Senate felt 
very seriously about. I would not want to rule out the possibility that 
an individual could be expelled from the Senate for one violation, 
depending on the severity of it.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator could tell me how many reprimands 
there have been in the history of the Senate?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I can find that out for the Senator. I do not know at 
the moment.
  Mr. LEVIN. So long as we are focusing on the amendment of the 
Senator----
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is the Senator suggesting we should not toughen the 
penalties for serious offenses?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is no alternative to toughening the rule.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator would like to toughen the penalty for 
offenses or egregious behavior, feel free. That is entirely consistent 
with what Senator Johnston and I are trying to achieve here.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am suggesting that the Senator is proposing that there 
be a toughening of the penalty, instead of toughening the rule in a 
significant way, and I think that really is a diversion from the issue 
before us, which is whether or not we toughen the rules. And I am 
saying, even if you look at the toughening of the penalty--to say we 
are really toughening these penalties because, if you are reprimanded 
three times, then you will be automatically expelled--as a matter of 
fact, you cannot be reprimanded even once without your consent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The issue is whether you want to trivialize the Senate 
or not, in my view. The goal of the Johnston-McConnell. substitute is 
to toughen the penalties for egregious offenses. If the Senator would 
like to toughen the penalties for egregious offenses, that is something 
we can talk about.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend. But the goal of this substitute of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee is to toughen the gift rules for the 
Senate. That is the real issue here--so that we can try to gain some 
credibility for the Senate and for the Congress as a whole, some of 
which has been lost by the loose gift rules that we have now. Those 
rules allow unlimited meals to be paid for by lobbyists, allow trips to 
be paid for by lobbyists who are there on the scene, whose corporations 
have funded the trips. Sometimes half of the money of those trips does 
not go to a charity. It goes for the so-called expenses of the 
recreational event, be it a golfing event or a tennis event.
  That is the purpose of this; to try to change the way in which we do 
business in terms of lobbyists and their gifts. That is the purpose of 
the substitute. I am afraid that purpose is not achieved by the 
amendment before us.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I think we can all see from the tone and 
tenor of the debate that this is a serious subject. Earlier today, I 
suggested that some people in this country might feel that influence 
can be gained through the purchase of a fruit basket or steak dinner. 
Yet it is a false perception.
  But there is a perception out there that we must address. One of the 
problems facing the Senate is how do you legislate away a false 
perception? It is not an easy thing to do but we are here trying to do 
just that. On the other hand, I do not believe that any Member of the 
Senate would say, or indeed demonstrate by his or her conduct, that a 
lunch or some other small gift in any way is going to affect their 
judgment.
  Nonetheless, I think that those who advocate the change--Senators 
Wellstone, Lautenberg, and others--believe that the public sees that 
our National policy has somehow been bent or directed in a way that is 
contrary to the Nation's best interests. That is a perception. And the 
public believes that lobbyists are the ones who are responsible for it. 
Yet, we understand that we were elected not to grant favor, but to do 
the Nation's business as best we think it can be carried out.
  The difficulty with these proposals including the one proposed by 
Senator McConnell, is that we are all trying to do what we think is the 
right thing. While I am likely to oppose the amendment offered by 
Senator McConnell, it is clear that this particular proposal offered by 
Senator Levin and supported by the Governmental Affairs Committee is 
not perfect. As Senator Johnston and Senator McConnell appropriately 
noted, it has a number of imperfections in it and we ought to be up 
front about it. That is the purpose of debating--to listen to our 
colleagues and attempt to improve the legislation before us.
  Even though we ban gifts from lobbyists, they could still give to our 
parties. For example, we have a host of lobbyists who support the 
Republican Party. There are a host that support the Democratic Party. 
So the Republican Party will then say we are having an event at the 
``XYZ'' center and here is your ticket to attend the event. To those 
who receive the tickets it is our understanding that our party is 
sponsoring the event, even though the people who contributed to it were 
the same lobbyists who were banned from giving it to us directly. This 
places us in the position of saying we do not know who contributed to 
the party, until you show up at the event and see the representative 
from XYZ corporation, or XYZ PAC, or whatever.
  Despite our good intentions in trying to appropriately address this 
issue, we must still recognize that when we try and legislate 
restrictions, we are not going to create a perfect package. There are 
going to be distortions of our intent, and there will be ways to 
circumvent whatever we do. Regardless of the possible ways to 
circumvent this legislation, it is a good-faith effort on the part of 
Senator Levin and the Governmental Affairs Committee to deal with an 
issue that has been raised to a high level of public concern.
  Please do not operate under the assumption that anything we do with 
this particular legislation is going to remove the level of cynicism. 
It is not. The cynicism was not reduced when Congress restricted its 
gym privileges. Yet we voted for the restrictions to please the public 
even though I could make a strong case by saying it is in the public 
interest to encourage Members to stay in shape, to be in better health, 
to diet more, to engage in exercise activities. That is in the public 
interest, and we ought to promote better health both inside and outside 
of government.
  Does it raise the respect for Congress because we passed a measure to 
restrict the use of the gym? I do not think so. We shut down the gift 
shop in the Dirksen Building a year or two ago, and I remember the day 
it was about to close. The rumor spread that they were about to shut 
down the gift shop and it looked like the last days of Saigon. I saw 
people lined up at that shop, and it looked like the last helicopter 
was leaving. Did the public's perception of Congress change as a result 
of that? I do not think so.

  I am suggesting that we are not proposing these changes--and we 
should not do it--with the expectation that the level of cynicism is 
going to be reduced or that Members or the Senate are now going to be 
raised in the eyes of our constituents. We should do it because it is 
the right thing to do, and with the understanding that the public's 
perception is only going to change when we deal with the fundamental 
issues facing our Nation such as health care, crime, and deficit 
reduction. These are the major issues which are affecting and 
afflicting our citizenry and until we deal effectively with them the 
public perception of Congress is not going to change.
  I point out that, historically, Congress has not enjoyed high levels 
of support. I think you could point back to 1974, in my experience at 
least, when the level of public support for Congress as an institution 
went up during the Watergate hearings. The public saw a Senate 
committee, the Watergate Committee, in action, asking questions, trying 
to act responsibly, and I believe they felt that the House and Senate 
rose to the occasion. They saw a committee in action, dealing with a 
tough issue. I think the polls reflected an immediate surge of 
appreciation for the level of debate that took place, even though there 
was great disagreement about whether we had acted appropriately or not.
  That increase in support occurred also during the debates that took 
place on the Persian Gulf war. When the public sees Congress doing its 
business and doing it in a way which they feel they can be proud of, 
even if they may disagree with the ultimate result, that is when public 
confidence in our institution goes up.
  This matter is important because there is a negative perception--
although it may be false, particularly on the fruit basket or steak 
dinner I mentioned. But when the public sees trips that are primarily 
recreational in nature and which have very little to do with the 
substantive issues coming before Congress, the perception is that there 
are lobbyists trying to gain our favor. Under those circumstances, the 
cynicism calcifies, and it afflicts the body public.
  From my own personal point of view, I do not play tennis or golf, and 
I have never been on a recreational trip. Any trip I have been on has 
been pure work, often from 7 in the morning until midnight. I do not 
have a personal stake in saying that I want to preserve something. But 
the public sees these instances in which they feel the nature of the 
travel, or the nature of the conference, is more leisure than work, in 
which case they ask, ``Who is paying, how much, and why?'' These are 
the issues we have to deal with.
  I looked at the substitute offered by my friend from Kentucky, and I 
find a couple of problems with it. I do not like the ``three-strikes-
and-you-are-out provision''. Here we are defending ourselves on the one 
hand, saying no one here is a criminal. Mark Twain might have said, 
``There is no distinct class of criminals, except Congress,'' but we 
know better. Everyone here is hardworking, idealistic, and working on 
behalf of their constituents back home.
  So the notion that somehow we are going to adopt a three-strikes-and-
you-are-out provision for Congress only solidifies the public's mind 
that somehow we think we are in the same league as criminals. I think 
one strike in these cases, one grievous violation and, in all 
probability, you will be out, or you should be out. You do not need to 
have three recommendations from the Ethics Committee going to the 
Senate floor for a reprimand to say, ``Now we think you are ready for 
expulsion.'' I think that is a particular flaw in this amendment.
  From a security point of view, I also disagree with the disclosure of 
travel plans prior to the actual travel taking place, requiring a 
detailed itinerary of where you are going. When international relations 
are not stressful, this provision probably does not present a problem. 
But when there are international tensions and Members of the Senate are 
taking a trip out of the country, I do not think it is advisable to 
publish in advance in the Congressional Record travel plans for that 
particular period of time. I think that is dangerous. I think, 
obviously, there must be a full disclosure once the trip is over. But 
out of concerns about Members' safety, I would never advise a prior 
disclosure and a detailed itinerary of exactly where you are going to 
be on each occasion.
  Again, perhaps I am overly concerned about security measures. But I 
have traveled to some fairly dangerous places during the course of my 
career in the House and Senate, and I must say that I would not have 
wanted it publicized exactly where I was going to be on a given day.
  Let me come back to the amendment that has been offered by my friend 
from Kentucky. I think he and Senator Johnston are also acting out of 
the best of intentions, and they are doing a considerable service to 
point out the difficulties that will be encountered if we pass the 
legislation which I am supporting.
  They are pointing out that there are traps that we must be aware of. 
There are some grave dangers that we may step into unknowingly, 
unwittingly, with serious consequences. So it is important that we take 
the time to debate this issue, not simply pass it in the name of good 
Government, but we debate it seriously and substantively and look and 
see exactly where we are going. But ultimately what we have to do is to 
adopt changes. I do not think it will alter the public's perception in 
terms of enhancing their confidence in us, but it may prevent it from 
going lower than it currently is. We will never really regain the 
public respect this institution deserves until we deal with the major 
substantive issues that this Nation faces.

  This is important because right now I think it is a view--maybe it is 
not quite as pervasive as I think it is out there--that somehow the 
Nation's business is being diverted or in some way twisted in a way 
that does not serve the public interest but only narrow special 
interests.
  Do we believe that is the case? Do we not all feel we are acting in 
the best interest of our constituents on crime welfare, the economy, 
and other important issues? The answer is, of course we do. However we 
are required to respond to the public perception. How we respond to it 
is really the issue here. Can we do it in a way that will set a 
standard that will measure up without falling into legal snares that 
will entrap well-intentioned, noble-minded individuals, and force them 
to go before the Ethics Committee on some minor provision? That is a 
serious question.
  I think it has been an important debate today. As the debate 
continues tomorrow, it should not be carried on with the view that we 
have the total solution here. We do not. There may be improvements that 
can be made upon this legislation. That is the way I hope we could 
carry on the debate, pointing out what I think are deficiencies in the 
McConnell amendment, and they rightly pointing out some of the problems 
we have in our own legislation.
  We do not have a clear-cut answer. It is not as simple as we would 
like to make it, because there are complications and ways to circumvent 
this bill if we pass it. There is no piece of legislation you can pass 
that will achieve perfection.
  I think this legislation is better than the initial version offered 
last year. It is a vast improvement in terms of simplicity and clarity.
  Some have asked, ``What is a reasonable person?'' That is what the 
law is all about. The law in our country is based upon the reasonably 
prudent person. That is the standard we go to a jury with. We appeal to 
a jury, the reasonable prudent person. Under the circumstances, what 
would a reasonably prudent person conclude? Was it negligence? Was it 
willful? Was it simply a minor slip? Was it intentional? What does a 
reasonable prudent person conclude? That is the standard we use in 
virtually our entire judicial system. It is a standard that is pretty 
well established. How do you define it? I think we have to fall upon 
reason and logic and experience.
  Madam President, I will not take further time tonight other than to 
reemphasize the points I have made. We are searching for a solution to 
deal with a perception that is negative, even if it is false in many 
respects, in an effort to deal with it in the most effective way we 
can.
  The McConnell amendment is an attempt to address this perception on 
the enforcement side. The Levin approach is that of tightening up the 
rules. It may be the ultimate result will end up somewhere in the 
middle.
  I want to commend all of the Members who contributed to the debate. 
It is important that we think about this now and not pass a bill and 
then later regret that we did not think about what Senator Inouye said 
about the floral leis he is often presented. What about the flowers 
that come to a Member or staffer in the hospital? These may seem like 
trivial matters, but it is important we try to resolve them through the 
debate.
  I know Senator Levin will bring forward a clarifying amendment 
tomorrow that will try to respond to the specific concerns that have 
been raised.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I will be brief, I say to my 
colleague from Wyoming.
  First of all, let me thank the Senator from Maine for his statement. 
I thought his words were eloquent. The one question, I would say to my 
colleague, that I am puzzled about is I quite agree with him that 
people really look to the Congress to address the really critical 
concerns and circumstances of their lives, whether it be health care or 
jobs or reduction of violence, of crime, or for that matter, given the 
international perspective, to understand the world we live in and be a 
country that plays a major and positive role. I agree.
  Now, I want to just build on the remarks of my colleague from 
Michigan. I do not understand why we just do not let loose of some of 
this and get on with it. I am quite serious. I have heard so many 
people say it is not that important; why do we not just get beyond this 
and let loose of some of this.
  I think the Senator is right when he talks about perception, and I 
think the problems with the amendment are the ones that were, in the 
main, outlined by the Senator from Michigan. I mean, we still have all 
of the travel, and it just looks terrible. The Senator uses the word 
``perception'' because it really will continue to be in the name of 
charity or not paid for by a lobbyist in a variety of different, large 
financial interests. It looks terrible. We do not need it. And if you 
have unlimited meals, it just does not pass the credibility test. Just 
let go of it. Why do not we just let go off this?
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. COHEN. The Senator makes a valid point on the travel, and I think 
Senator Johnston essentially raised the issue about the Aspen 
Institute. I have been actively involved in the Aspen Institute over 
the years, as I believe Senator Levin has. We have traveled to exotic 
places to hold conferences. They meet throughout the day and it is 
primarily business. The institute invited Soviet scholars and 
politicians to help us better understand what was going on in the 
Soviet Union. They sponsored a trip that Senator Levin and I took with 
Senator Simpson to Moscow for several days to meet with Andrei Sakharov 
and others, in an effort to make us better informed.
  Those are the kinds of trips that we ought to encourage.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. COHEN. Yet, I think there will be some apprehension if this 
legislation gets passed as to whether those types of trips are the 
right thing to do. At the same time those trips are very different from 
travelling to golf tournaments or tennis tournaments, even though many 
of the tournament trips are also for valid functions. There are 
tournaments to raise money for charity and they will be impacted by 
this.
  But there are distinctions that have to be drawn between the kinds of 
travel that is permitted, which is without question principally 
business in nature. We should encourage trips that promote our 
understanding internationally, and that will help us develop informed 
policies.
  So the perception, I think, ultimately is different even on trips 
which are largely informational in nature where you must work 
extensively. Although some of these trips may be held in Bermuda, or 
Round Hill where, as I recall, many of them have been held, that, too, 
creates a perception we are travelling for leisure. On the other hand 
some Members would probably not go to the seminars if they did not have 
the chance to spend some time taking a break from hurly-burly 
Washington. Clearly the issue is not always black and white. I think 
that these distinctions must be drawn, and I am hopeful that we can 
clarify these issues during the course of the debate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me say to my colleague from Maine that I agree 
with him. I have always felt, in trying to work this out, that that 
distinction is a very important one to make.
  What I do not understand--and I would just mention one other problem 
with the substitute amendment. I mean, again, we can talk about the 
work that we do, travel somewhere as a part of a conference that is 
policy oriented, extremely important, in terms of giving us a broader 
perspective, extremely important bringing a variety of thinkers 
together and comparing notes. That is one thing.
  Again, to continue free tickets, anything under $75, not even 
counting toward any aggregate, it just does not make any sense. I will 
go back to the issue of perception. I do not even want to argue that 
point. How much is perception? How much is reality? I think that is 
mainly perception when we have an amendment here. It really is. I mean 
I just want our colleagues to understand this really is business as 
usual.
  Does it represent any major change? If we are going to continue to 
allow a lot of paid travel, a lot of paid trips, going to continue to 
have unlimited meals from any source, any source, and if we are going 
to continue to have tickets under $75, unlimited, no aggregate amount, 
I just think it does not pass the credibility test. I hope my 
colleagues will understand this.
  Again, I will just repeat what I said earlier. People do care. 
Whether or not we think they should care, I happen to believe they 
should care about ethics, about good government, about accountability, 
about our having as honest and open a process as possible.
  People will understand full well that this substitute amendment does 
not represent any kind of significant reform. It is business as usual. 
I certainly hope that Senators will vote this down.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I have been listening to the debate and 
hearing the cries of anguish from our colleagues--in private, of 
course--with regard to this legislation, like: How long are we going to 
do this to ourselves, and what should be done?
  I support the McConnell-Johnston substitute. I think these two fine 
colleagues have done an excellent job of trying to bring reality to 
what is a difficult situation.
  There has never been a time in the history of the U.S. Congress that 
this institution was as popular as those who have served would like it 
to be. It is not exactly highly revered, nor is the Presidency, nor are 
local governments.
  Congress has been the butt of jokes for now a bit over 200 years. We 
should be used to it by now.
  But, nevertheless, we are going through another exercise at self-
criticism, and we are going to change the rules under which we operate 
in the hopes of gaining greater respect from the American people. 
Unfortunately, I just do not think that the mind of man could draft a 
piece of legislation that would ever obtain that result.
  In my legislative career of 30 years, in Wyoming in the legislature 
and here, I have always thought the best way to handle these things was 
through total disclosure. The issue is ``sunshine laws'' and full 
disclosure. Put it in the record. What did you receive? How much was it 
worth? I have no problems with full disclosure of such things.
  There have been some serious issues raised by Senator Cohen about 
activities like those sponsored by the Aspen Institute and the Carnegie 
Foundation. I have been the beneficiary of those. They are marvelous 
learning experiences. And I have been to some of those events, and also 
to events in support of charities. I have done those things, and they 
are all clearly disclosed.
  But one thing I think has not sufficiently been discussed here is 
honoraria which go entirely to charity. In the year 1991, there was 
$762,316 in honoraria given by Members in the U.S. Senate to various 
institutions and charities. Last year, Senators directed over $500,000 
from honoraria speeches to charities.
  I see the majority leader on the floor. I remember very well at a 
function about 2 years ago when he shared with us at a dinner of 
Members and spouses a quote as to how people in America perceive their 
Congress. Essentially, it was an eloquent quote about how the American 
people have never held Congress in high esteem. And that is true! But, 
we do not have bodyguards. We do not go home with trumpets blaring or 
limos waiting. That is just not the way it is.

  I greatly respect Senator Levin. He and I came here together. Senator 
Cohen, Senator Levin and I all were in the same class. And Senator 
Wellstone is speaking from deep feelings on this issue.
  As I always say to my constituents, there are 535 of us and there are 
about the same number of lightweights, screwballs, and boobs in 
Congress as there are in your hometown. After all, it is a 
representative Government. You would not want those people to be 
unrepresented. And we do have people here that represent that segment 
of society.
  So, with that, we must remember that the rest of us are trying to do 
it right. There are not many ``corner cutters'' in Congress. There are 
not many Members trying to gimmick the system.
  We really ought to examine very carefully the issue of honoraria 
which are directed to charity. Under the Levin bill, that will cease. 
And that is unfortunate.
  We ought to carefully examine provisions relating to factfinding 
missions. I went to the Soviet Union for 10 days with Senator Cranston, 
Senator Levin, Senator Cohen, and Senator Nunn; it was the greatest 
learning experience of my time in the U.S. Senate. A lot of positive 
things happened after we left. And I think a lot of it was due to our 
presence.
  I think the majority leader would like to pose his unanimous-consent 
request, and I will continue when he concludes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate resume consideration of S. 1935, the gift ban legislation, at 10 
a.m. tomorrow; that there then be a time limitation on the McConnell-
Johnston substitute amendment, numbered 1674, of 3\1/2\ hours, equally 
divided in the usual form; and that at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow, the Senate 
vote on or in relation to that amendment, with no amendments in order 
to the McConnell-Johnston substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, in view of this agreement, there will 
be no further rollcall votes today.
  As the agreement states, there will be 3\1/2\ hours of debate 
tomorrow on the McConnell-Johnston substitute amendment and a vote on 
or in relation to that amendment at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
  Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I am pleased we were able to arrive at this unanimous-
consent agreement. I think that will certainly generate a swifter 
solution here.
  The McConnell-Johnston substitute provides some tough penalties for 
those who violate the rules. It substantially reduces gift limits 
without discarding the type of activities which benefit charities. It 
is a reasonable approach and I wholeheartedly support it.
  I am proud to say that I do give speeches for honoraria. Senator Ted 
Kennedy and I still do a program called ``Face Off.'' The entire 
receipts of ``Face Off'' go to various charities in his State and mine 
and throughout the country. We receive and keep nothing from ``Face 
Off.'' I receive and keep nothing from the honoraria speeches.
  I think it is very important that those should be allowed to 
continue. From every report I receive, charities are presently facing a 
serious decline in contributions. What is wrong with directing money to 
charity? Mine are all listed. Anyone can find out who sponsored the 
speech and how much was contributed to charity. There is not a thing I 
do which I do not expect to be seen by a lot of sets of eyeballs. That 
might be a real novel idea to ponder!

  There are no locks on any drawers in my office. I gave back $93,000 
in my salary over the past 5 years, from 1987 on. I take on outfits 
like the AARP, and some of the veterans groups and others. It would be 
something if all of us would take a lick there at a few ``sacred cows'' 
out there. That would begin to shape up this institution. That is what 
we ought to be doing, but we do not.
  Somebody ought to write a ``Portrait In Courage'' about how we cower 
under the power of organizations like the AARP that just whip us into a 
frenzy. Is anyone willing to take on the AARP with me? I have not had 
anybody beating my door down. But I sure do get in and wade around in 
it and talk about what they have in the way of money, and what they do, 
and how they come in here and give us a bunch of smoke about if we pass 
a balanced budget amendment everybody in America will lose $1,142.50 of 
their Social Security payments.
  What kinds of people are they?
  So, step up. If we are going to do real work, we should not just do 
the stuff that gets people excited briefly on the television news. Let 
us do some ``heavy lifting.'' Let us do something with the entitlements 
programs: Medicare, Medicaid, the benefits programs.
  We should begin to lay the facts regarding U.S. Senate pensions out 
on the table. I may do that with legislation because the people of 
America need to know that we receive the most extraordinarily generous 
pensions. We pay 8 percent of our salary. Other Federal employees pay 7 
percent. We receive pensions far in excess of what we have put in, 
depending on your length of service.
  If we are going to do self-flagellation, I think we must pass around 
an additional parcel of whips. The Senate pension program would be an 
interesting topic for discussion. This will not make much headway out 
in the country, but it will certainly create a great stir of interest 
with my colleagues. That is something real. But there are many 
misperceptions about Congress, too. Let us discuss what we really do. 
The people of America do not really feel it is the lobbyists that 
dictate how we operate. But, they really believe that we fly back and 
forth to our districts in military aircraft, or that we have autos at 
our disposal, or that we pay no Social Security, and no income tax. 
I've seen them at town meetings. They say, ``We do not like what you 
people do. We do not like the perks you have.''

  I say, ``What perks do I have?''
  They say, ``Well, you voted in the middle of the night for a pay 
raise.''
  I listen to that.
  Then, ``You did this, and you did that, and you get this.'' I say, 
``Wait a minute, we voted at 9:20 at night one evening for a pay raise 
and everybody voted yes or no. What is tricky about that?'' ``Well, I 
did not know that.''
  I say, ``I know.''
  And I say, ``I pay my own Social Security at the maximum rate. I pay 
my own house payments, my own mortgages, pay my own pension money, I 
pay my own medical insurance.''
  They say, ``Well we want a health insurance policy like you have.''
  I say, ``Great, just be a Federal employee because I get the same one 
the rest of the Federal employees get.'' ``No, you don't.''
  I say, ``Yes, I do.''
  So you can hardly convince your constituents what is real because 
their minds have been so clouded about what they think we do and the 
perks we receive. Then you tell them you pay for the gymnasium and that 
is $500 a year, and I go in there once a month; or that you pay for a 
cold remedy at the infirmary here. We pay for everything we do. The 
American people don't know that.
  How strange and curious it is that we are working on this bill. If we 
really want to do something, maybe we should look again at the frank. 
That needs careful attention. These are the real things. These are the 
things that will save us some real bucks. Then of course there is the 
legislation to apply to us every form of law that we inflict upon the 
rest of society. That is a real one which often disappears somewhere 
along the way here.
  So we should not spend the time of Congress focusing on the few 
people who get notoriety for cutting corners, making shortcuts. This 
bill requires a greater examination than I believe we have given it to 
this point.
  I thank, indeed, Senator McConnell and Senator Bennett Johnston for 
bringing this legislation some semblance of order. It is ludicrous that 
we are considering this legislation when we continually--leave 
unaddressed the great, huge issues facing our country. And the huge 
issues of how so-called reputable organizations like the AARP have the 
capacity to freeze Congress in place. That is what we ought to look at. 
Instead of banning honoraria directed to charity. I personally do not 
really enjoy going out with lobbyists at night. I prefer to go home, 
put a couple of candles in the middle of the table, and visit with the 
woman I have been living with for 40 years. I enjoy that.
  I feel we can reach a point of eventual absurdity with this 
legislation. If we are going to do stuff, let us go for the ``heavy 
stuff''. Maybe we can join together and be realistic rather than making 
efforts to bring our own institution down. I do not see the purpose in 
that. I know it is not the purpose of the sponsors but that is 
occurring, at the expense of worthwhile efforts like contributing to 
charities.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I do not know of anybody else who wishes 
to speak tonight so I think we can, perhaps, suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________