[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 53 (Thursday, May 5, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     CONGRESSIONAL GIFTS REFORM ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1678

 (Purpose: To prohibit the provision of gifts and other benefits from 
         non-lobbyists to members of Congress and their staff)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1678.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike line 8 on page 35 through line 9 on page 49 of the 
     Committee substitute, and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:

     ``any gift provided directly or indirectly by any person.
       ``(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--
     ``any gift provided directly or indirectly by any person.''

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. I will 
be willing to enter into a very short time agreement or, if you want, 
to just describe the amendment, let the Members voice their opinions 
and then vote on it.
  One of the strongest objections I have had to the Levin proposal is 
not that lobbyists are prohibited from making any kind of a gift or 
contribution to a Senator, but because all other gifts are limited to 
$20. I must say I do not understand an arbitrary figure of $20.
  The principal objection I have had to both the Feingold-Wellstone and 
Levin proposals is the one that was voiced by the Senator from 
Kentucky, and that is: I think you are laying minefields where innocent 
Senators are going to get in big-time trouble, inadvertently and 
innocently.
  What if a gift came into my office in a box and I ignored it, or did 
not think about it? One day, I say to somebody, ``What is this gift?'' 
They say, ``I don't know.'' And you open it up and it is a Rolex watch.
  I send it back, but maybe 31 to 60 days has gone by. And let us just 
assume that you have a political adversary and some staff member tells 
him about it. The first thing you know, you have a complaint lodged 
with the Ethics Committee because you did not return the gift within 30 
days.
  Or let us assume that you have dinner some evening, not with a 
lobbyist but with some other person, and the people at the next table 
hear the discussion about who is going to pick up the tab. You go 
through the bill and you say, ``Look, I have to pay for everything in 
excess of $20.'' And he says, ``OK, I'll get the tip.'' And let us 
assume that you have a $50 to $100 bill and the tip is anywhere from 
$15 to $25, whatever, and somebody hears that and reports that to the 
Ethics Committee, that a Senator received in excess of $20.
  And, incidentally, I want to point out that my amendment does not 
change any of the exceptions that are listed in the Levin proposal, but 
I do want to read one thing here to you. ``The substitute would also 
prohibit''--this is from the Democratic Policy Committee. It is not 
from the bill. ``The substitute would also prohibit any other person, 
that is, other than a lobbyist, from providing gifts of more than $20 
to Members and staff.''
  That means constituents, constituents coming into town. I had lunch 
with a good friend yesterday who was in the State legislature when I 
was Governor. He insisted on taking me to lunch. This bill did not have 
anything to do with that. But I took him to lunch. We all normally take 
constituents to lunch. But under this bill, if he took me to lunch I 
would have to either say let us go to McDonald's, where I could be 
reasonably sure if he insisted on picking up the tab that I was not 
going to get handcuffs put on me, or I would have to let him know that 
I would pay my own way, to which he would take some offense I think--or 
make a computation at the table after dinner or after lunch, to make 
sure he did not pay more than $20 for my lunch.
  Here is my amendment. Every place in this bill where it says ``$20,'' 
insert ``zero.'' I know how much ``zero'' is. That means nobody can 
give you anything. I do not have a problem living with that. Through 
sheer inadvertence, there will probably be times when things come into 
my office that I am not aware of--maybe even staff is not aware of. But 
when somebody comes into my office and lays a bottle of wine on the 
table my Secretary is going to have to call every liquor store in town 
or just have an office policy of sending it back, which is probably 
what I will do if my amendment fails. Because I just do not want to get 
into this determining whether something is worth $20 or not.
  It is bad enough in today's $100 proposal. I said this morning that I 
have a wonderful secretary. She is as ethically conscientious, as 
anybody I have ever known in my life. As I said she keeps the Ethics 
Committee and Rules Committee on autodial. And if something comes in 
that she has the least question about the value she calls all over town 
to make sure the value does not exceed $100. It is hardly worth the 
effort.
  By the same token you do not like to hurt somebody's feelings, 
either, saying I am sorry I cannot take your gift.
  Let me digress just a moment, Mr. President, just to tell you this. 
When I ran for Governor the first time, talk about naive, you talk 
about a country boy come to town, that is the first time I realized 
that campaigns operated on cash. I was just a country lawyer, but I had 
enough sense to account for every single dollar we took in, though the 
law didn't require it. I would say that well over 50 percent of our 
contributions were in cash. And we documented every penny of it--just a 
little native intelligence saved me.

  I remember a woman handed me what I thought was a package of gum at a 
rally. She told me she was on welfare and this is all she could give me 
but she was hot for me for Governor. She handed me what I thought was a 
package of spearmint gum. When I got back to the office I took it out 
and looked at it. She had very carefully rewrapped every stick that had 
been gum, and in 2 of them, very carefully folded, a $1 bill.
  We wrote down, ``$2, anonymous gum wrapper,'' in our books.
  But the story I was about to tell you is I got a $5,000 contribution 
in $100 bills. Things like that, I must confess, frightened me when I 
was running. I had no idea people gave money like that. I did not know 
campaigns dealt in cash.
  One of my friends brought the money to me. I said, ``I do not like 
this.'' There was nothing wrong with it, nothing illegal about it under 
our laws at that time.
  He said--I know this sounds a little self-serving--he said, ``I 
promise you this guy just wants good government.''
  Incidentally, I found out some people wanted a little more than good 
government after I was inaugurated. But, be that as it may--I took the 
money home that night. And I could not sleep. The next morning I took 
it back and I said, ``You give it back. I do not feel comfortable with 
it, and I am not going to take money from anybody for any reason that I 
feel uncomfortable with, and I certainly feel uncomfortable and with 
that much cash.''
  The giver was a perfectly fine gentleman. There was nothing wrong 
with him. I just did not feel comfortable with it. But I can tell you 
one thing, ``he has not liked me to this day.''
  If you think you can turn somebody's campaign contribution down and 
make them like it, I do not care what rationale you use, you are 
fooling yourself. You are effectively saying, ``your money isn't good 
enough for me.'' And you do not win friends that way.
  So there is a little of that in this bill. Some people are going to 
be offended without realizing that it is the law we are trying to 
comply with; trying to meet and dampen the cynicism that does indeed 
exist toward politicians in this country.
  One thing that is disturbing is that the bill seems accusatory. Every 
Senator I know in this body does his very best to comply with every 
rule of the Rules Committee and every rule of the Ethics Committee. But 
my point is this: Here it says every year the Rules Committee would be 
authorized to change the $20 limit to the extent necessary to adjust 
for inflation. So if you think $20 is hard to figure out, is it more 
than $20 or is it $19 or is it $21, in 1995 you are going to have to 
figure out, assuming the inflation rate is 3 percent, is the gift worth 
more than $20.60 or less than $20.60? And, in 1996 is it worth more or 
less than $20.78?
  What kind of nonsense is this? It will be infinitely easier, and if 
you want to allay the cynicism, the distrust of the people in this 
country just to say no to any and all gifts. If the purpose of this 
bill is to convince people that we are honorable people--all I am 
telling you is, it is a lot easier to compute something if it does not 
exist--we know the value of zero--than it is to try to figure out 
whether something is worth $19.95 or $20.05.
  So all my amendment does, is leave the exceptions, leaves all the 
exceptions in of the Levin bill. But it would simply say: No gifts from 
anybody.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wanted to ask my good friend from 
Arkansas a question or two about his amendment so I can be sure I 
understand it. Does the Senator's amendment say you cannot take any 
gift from anybody? Or just from lobbyists?
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Levin amendment prohibits a gift of any kind from a 
lobbyist. It limits gifts from others to a $20 value, with the 
exceptions which I am sure the Senator has seen. I am saying: Do not 
just make it for lobbyists; make it for anybody, with those exceptions.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me ask my friend--and I understand 
what he is trying to do. In my office yesterday a young woman brought 
me a T-shirt from the association that she was here with. I think T-
shirts are worth more than $20 now. What would happen under your bill 
to these things that people walk in our offices and bring to us. They 
are tokens, but they are gifts all right. Just today a young man came 
in from the job corps center. He was very proud of his role at the 
center. He brought me one of those baseball caps. This one is 
waterproof and lined. It is a very nice baseball cap. What about that? 
Is this covered by the amendment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes, of course.
  Mr. STEVENS. We say no to that, too?
  Mr. BUMPERS. It is better than asking the man the value of this cap 
or T-shirt, whatever it is. T-shirts are much more expensive than I 
dreamed of these days. I tried to buy one a couple of weeks ago and it 
was $15. But you can say in a nice, discrete way, ``I know your 
intentions are honorable, but we have a hard and fast rule in the 
Senate that we cannot accept a gift of any value.''
  Mr. STEVENS. Does that interpretation apply to my daughter, too, who 
lives with me?
  Mr. BUMPERS. It would not.
  Mr. STEVENS. Your zero amount is a gift to a Senator.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am not sure--this only amends the Levin bill to the 
extent of the value of the gift. I think the Levin amendment only 
applies to Senators and staff, but I ask the distinguished floor 
manager, who is on the floor right now, if I am in error on that.
  Mr. STEVENS. I inquire of the manager of the bill, does the pending 
bill affect the gift that my daughter, who lives at home and is 
underage, might receive?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I think she would probably be exempt, but in our ethics 
report spouses are included. My office manager came in a moment ago and 
said, ``I'm working on your ethics report.'' She wanted to ask me a 
couple questions. So it is that time of year again.
  As you know, everything my wife owns and all her income goes on my 
ethics report. I will give you an illustration of how that works. 
Betty's father died in 1986. He was not a wealthy man, but he was not 
poor. He left her land and money, and in the following year my assets 
went up rather substantially on my ethics report. The local paper said, 
``Bumpers net worth goes up'' so many thousands of dollars. Even though 
you put ``S,'' you encircle an ``S'' in parenthesis in the ethics 
report for spouse, no reporter ever notices that. They just take the 
bottom line.
  It looked as though somehow or another I enriched myself, but it was 
an inheritance Betty got from her father.
  Mr. STEVENS. Do the managers of the bill have an answer to my 
question? The Senator now raises the question of spouses. Does this 
apply to my daughter who lives with me?
  Mr. COHEN. It is my understanding it would, in fact, apply to any 
Member, officer, employee of the Senate, spouse, and dependent thereof. 
It applies to staff, Senators, spouse and dependent children.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me make sure I understand what this 
bill does then, because I might have voted for it before just now.
  My daughter, who is in school, goes to a party--she has been going to 
a series of parties lately--and she comes back with a present. I have 
to tell her to take it back, she cannot take a gift, no matter what the 
value? Is that what we are saying?
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is correct. Bear in mind, under the Levin 
amendment, you have to determine the value.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am just exploring that because I do not want to 
embarrass her, and when I get home, she is going to be embarrassed. She 
has been going to a series of bat mitzvahs in the Washington area these 
last 3 or 4 weeks where they give gifts to the young women who come to 
celebrate the event with them.
  What am I supposed to do, tell her to take it back? Under the 
amendment of the Senator from Arkansas, I should tell her she cannot 
have it at all, and under the Levin amendment, I have to ask her what 
it is worth; is that right?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, I think that in the case of your beloved 
daughter, you would be quite secure if she came home with a gift of 
almost any value--well, I will not say that--but of nominal value, say, 
$20. You could be secure in that because there is an exemption for 
those ``motivated by personal or family relationships.'' If she came 
home with something from school, that would certainly be a personal 
relationship.
  Mr. STEVENS. I hope that is the case because I do not want to be 
embarrassed somewhere down the line.
  I ask the Senator from Michigan, is that right? This bill purports to 
cover gifts to my daughter and gifts to my spouse, but if I see a gift, 
do I inquire where it came from, what its value is, what the personal 
relationship is of the person who gave it to them?

  I sort of like to sleep indoors. I am not sure I like to sleep on the 
porch, but I am liable to have to if I start asking questions like that 
of my daughter.
  May I inquire of the manager of the bill, what is his intent with 
regard to this coverage of our dependent children and our spouse with 
regard to this gift rule?
  Mr. LEVIN. It is the same as under the current rule. The current rule 
provides that ``no Member, officer, employee of the Senate, or the 
spouse or dependent thereof.'' It is the same.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do not think it covers a gift from anybody, at least 
it did not when I was chairman of the Ethics Committee. At that time it 
did not cover a gift from anybody for any amount. It only covered a 
gift from lobbyists.
  But with regard to the concepts we are dealing with now--the $20 
limit has never been in any bill before. Not when the limit was $100 
from lobbyist and now that the limit is $250 from anyone. I never had 
to ask my daughter when she came back from a party what someone gave 
her. I am a little worried about where we are going.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, I have been informed by my 
staff that since 1989, the rule has been it is a gift of any source.
  Mr. STEVENS. Over a value of $250.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is a different issue.
  Mr. STEVENS. You want to make it $20 now.
  Mr. LEVIN. You want to know does the rule apply to your daughter. The 
answer is, the rule has applied to your daughter since 1989 from any 
source. So the language ``no Member, officer, employee of the Senate, 
or the spouse or dependent thereof'' has been in the rule since 1989.
  Mr. STEVENS. But you are putting $20 on that now, is that right?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. And that applies to my daughter?
  Mr. LEVIN. The rules apply to your daughter as they have since 1989. 
However, there is a personal friendship exemption which I know would 
cover the situation that the Senator from Alaska outlines.
  Mr. STEVENS. What does apply to my daughter then under your bill? 
What is the impact of saying it applies to my daughter?
  Mr. LEVIN. If someone gave your daughter now something greater than--
now--something greater than $250 from any source, she would be covered 
now, under current rules. So in terms of the coverage of your daughter, 
your daughter is covered under the current rules.
  The $20 limit has many, many exceptions, so I cannot tell you what 
she can do. I can go through all the exceptions with the Senator from 
Alaska, which I would be happy to do, but the one you mentioned 
relative to the birthday party, she is fine, no problem; she gets it 
from a personal friend and there is no difficulty and there is no limit 
on that amount.
  Mr. STEVENS. What about the spouse? Mr. President, I think this type 
of limited restriction on individuals outside of the Senate raises 
constitutional issues. Each of these people who live with me are 
individuals in their own right, and I am not sure that this Congress or 
this Senate has the right to tell them they cannot do something because 
I am in office or to put me in a position where my job is in jeopardy 
if they do it. It is one thing to include them where the restrictions 
are broad and not extremely burdensome but to include them under very 
strict restrictions that we chose to impose on ourselves seems unfair.
  Why must it cover the child on one hand then provide all these 
exemptions on the other. What does it really mean?
  Mr. LEVIN. It means the current Senate rule has the same problem 
which my friend from Alaska describes. The current Senate rule applies 
to spouses.
  Do we have a constitutional right to apply that rule to spouses or to 
dependents? The answer is that is the same problem in the current 
Senate rule. That is not a new problem added by this language. That is 
the current Senate rule which says ``no Member, officer or employee of 
the Senate, or the spouse or the dependent thereof shall knowingly 
accept,'' et cetera. But that is the current language.
  Mr. STEVENS. There are exceptions under the Senator's amendment, a 
series of exceptions. For instance, a personal friendship. What if that 
personal friend happens to be a lobbyist, too?
  Mr. LEVIN. The personal friendship exemption still applies.
  Mr. STEVENS. How do we know which is the highest priority exemption? 
I thought there was an absolute prohibition of any gift from a 
lobbyist. Am I wrong?
  Mr. LEVIN. There are certain exceptions to the lobbyist including 
personal friendship.
  Mr. STEVENS. I can go out to dinner with my personal friend who is a 
lobbyist, but the Senator cannot go out to dinner with my friend who is 
a lobbyist but who is not a personal friend of my friend. Is that 
right?
  Mr. LEVIN. It depends on the amount of dinner. Is the Senator saying 
that dinner is over $20.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have to tell you, Mr. President, I rarely go out to 
dinner with lobbyists anyway.
  Mr. LEVIN. The answer is zero from lobbyists, that is correct. And 
from other than lobbyists, there is a $20 rule. That does not mean you 
cannot go out to dinner. It means if it is over $20, you are going to 
have to either pay for it yourself, unless you are having that in your 
home State, in which case the Rules Committee is going to say meals and 
entertainment in your home State can be more than $20 and they are 
going to set the reasonable amount of what that can be.
  Mr. STEVENS. As the ranking member of the Rules Committee, I thank 
you very much for that gesture and I am sure we welcome that duty.
  I wish to get back to this lobbyist issue. Did I understand the 
Senator to say that there is no bar of a gift from a lobbyist to my 
daughter?
  Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator talking about a personal friend?
  Mr. STEVENS. Personal friend lobbyist.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. If it is a personal friend, the lobbyist can give a 
present to my daughter.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is no limit.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. No dollar limit.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is a dollar limit under law currently which is 
$250. Are you changing that?
  Mr. LEVIN. There is a dollar limit----
  Mr. STEVENS. There is a dollar limit today, absolute dollar limit of 
$250. Are you changing that?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is a proposed amendment, to have the same $250 limit 
in the bill before us, as currently exists under the rules. Someone has 
proposed that we have that same $250 limit subject to the waiver of the 
Ethics Committee which we have under the current rules. I am willing to 
accept that amendment. It seems to me that is reasonable. But as the 
language reads right now, there is no such limit.
  Mr. STEVENS. This amendment applies to Members and staff, applies to 
Members' spouses and children. Does it apply to staff's spouses and 
children?
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me read the exact language: ``No Member, officer, or 
employee of the Senate, or the spouse or dependent thereof.'' It is 
exactly the same language as the current rule.
  Mr. STEVENS. So if one of my young staff has a baby and someone, a 
lobbyist wants to give them a present, it is all right if they are a 
friend but it is not all right if they are not a friend?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is that right?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for an observation?
  Mr. LEVIN. Be happy to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I was busy before, but page 35 of the bill says, ``No 
Member, officer, or employee of the Senate, or the spouse or dependent 
thereof.''
  Mr. STEVENS. It includes an employee of the Senate.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Oh, yes, employees of the Senate are covered.
  Mr. LEVIN. By the current rule. I am reading the current rule. The 
Senator is reading the bill.
  It is the same language.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let me review for a moment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is the Senator telling me that staff members, wives and 
spouses and dependents are not affected by this?
  Mr. LEVIN. They are covered under the current rule. I am reading the 
current rule which has got the exact same language as the bill.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is what the Senator from Alaska wants to know. What 
is the Levin proposal regarding Senate staffs?
  Mr. LEVIN. It is the same as the current rule.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The current rule is, ``No Member, officer, or employee 
of the Senate, or the spouse or dependent thereof, shall knowingly 
accept''----
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. So that answers the Senator's question.
  Mr. LEVIN. It does not change the current rule.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at first it sounded like the language 
read by the Senator was broader but I understand that the current rule 
also covers them; is that right?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. The current rule has the same 
language as the bill. There just is no change in that respect. If there 
is a problem, the problem is the current rule.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Alaska yield for this observation?
  Mr. STEVENS. I will yield for an observation. I do have an inquiry to 
make of the Senator from Michigan. I really believe the current rule 
has a limitation that makes it really less--have less impact on 
employees and their spouses and children and the spouse and children of 
Members than the bill that is before us now. The proposed amendment 
seems more burdensome and complicated. I seriously question our right, 
constitutionally, to put these limits on our spouses, who have their 
own right to their own employment and their own lives, and our children 
similarly.
  But I really question the impact on employees, the policemen, who are 
out here to protect us, and their spouses and their children. Should 
they be covered by the same concept that we are?
  I know the answer is going to be the current rule covers them, but 
the current rule has such a high maximum it was not as big a problem. I 
was about to support the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas, but 
the more I think about it, the more I think we ought to go back to $250 
and stop the $20 nonsense. It seems to me that many of the people who 
work for us do not even know that when their wives have babies and 
someone gives them a gift they have to analyze who gave them the gift 
and its value and could be required to return it.
  I yield to my friend----
  Mr. LEVIN. Could I ask the Senator to yield for 1 second. The bill 
before us has an exception for personal friendship. The current rule 
does not.
  Mr. STEVENS. I applaud the effort. But I am afraid the problem is 
that some future Ethics Committee chairman is going to say that there 
is a difference in these exceptions, and that being a lobbyist is a 
barrier. And I agree with the Senator from Arkansas, that a lot of 
future Senators are going to be very embarrassed over this bill.
  I yield to my friend for his comment, though.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                    Amendment No. 1678, as modified

  Mr. BUMPERS. I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify, and the 
amendment is so modified.
  The modification is as follows:

       Strike line 7 on page 35 through line 9 on page 49 of the 
     Committee substitute, and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:

     ``or the spouse thereof, shall knowingly accept any gift 
     provided directly or indirectly by any person.''
       ``(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 thereof, shall knowingly 
     accept--
       ``any gift provided directly or indirectly by any person.''

  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator wish to explain the modification?
  Mr. BUMPERS. The amendment has not been reported. The modification 
has not been reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The practice in the Senate is not to report 
modifications.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Alaska has raised some very important 
issues, and my own feeling is that one of the objections he has raised 
is so legitimate, I have sent this modification to the desk so that the 
Levin substitute covers spouses only and not dependents. So you will 
not have to worry about your daughter ever coming home from school with 
a gift.
  However, I do want to point out, and I want to summarize this and ask 
the floor managers whether I am correct or incorrect, because I want to 
draw a comparison between existing law and the Levin substitute.
  Under existing law, you can take as many $100 gifts, go out to dinner 
with lobbyists as many times as you want, as long as the dinner is less 
than $100, and you can do that, as I say, as often as you choose to do 
it during the year. If the gift is over a $100, it has to be reported.
  And then there is a limit of $250, above which there is an absolute 
prohibition. Is that not correct?
  So right now you have a $100 limit which you do not have to report. 
You can go out to dinner with somebody and let them spend $100 on you 
every night, 365 days a year, and you are not violating anything.
  You can take a gift of $150, but you must report that at the end of 
the year as a gift in excess of $100. And you must not accept a gift in 
excess of $250 from anybody. Is that correct?
  Now, what this bill does, it makes a lot of changes, but as far as 
the monetary difference is concerned, this bill, the Levin bill says 
you can take $20 as often as you want, every night during the year, 
from anybody except a lobbyist, and you may not take any size gift from 
a lobbyist.
  Now, that is essentially it. So the Senator from Alaska raises this 
question about dependents. Under the Levin proposal, if the Senator's 
lovely daughter comes home from a birthday party with a Timex watch 
which was given as a party gift to all of those who attended, under the 
Levin bill you will be obligated to check the value of that watch.
  And if it exceeds $20, you will be required to send it back within 30 
days. If it does not exceed $20, she may keep it. If she comes home 
with that same watch, under my original amendment, you would have had 
to send it back if it exceeded $20 in value, but under my modification, 
the watch would be exempt.
  So if she comes home with a T-shirt or a baseball cap or any of those 
things, you do not have to worry. If she comes home with something that 
looks to you like it is going to be worth more than $20, though, you 
are going to have an obligation to check it out even under my 
amendment, which is essentially, so far as dependents are concerned the 
same as the Levin bill.
  Mr. COHEN. As I understood the original amendment, the Senator took 
the $20 out and made it zero.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is right.
  Mr. COHEN. Now the Senator is going to raise it to $20 for dependents 
only?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Dependents only; the zero part of my amendment will 
still apply to Members, employees, and staff members.
  Mr. COHEN. Spouses?
  Mr. BUMPERS. And their spouses.
  Mr. COHEN. And dependents are the ones with the $20 figure?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Alaska will 
yield so I can respond to the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will defer.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I misspoke myself. Let me clarify. My staff tells me 
there is no limit on dependents. That is, of course, minor dependents. 
I want to think about that just a minute, to tell you the truth.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder, while the Senator is thinking if I could respond 
to the Senator's points because there were a number of things which 
were not accurate in the summary of the Senator from Arkansas.
  First of all, you do not have to report the meals or anything else 
until it exceeds $250. That was a difference.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Even after the $20 limit.
  Mr. LEVIN. Under current law, you do not have to disclose it. That 
was not accurately described by the Senator's statement.
  Second, meals do not count at all under current law. They do not even 
count against the $100 or the $250. They do not count at all.
  The Senator in his presentation of current law compared it to the 
bill and said meals do count. They do not count at all under current 
law.
  Third, the Senator said that you could take all the meals that you 
want under the committee substitute which is before us. You can take 
one of these gifts, $19, every single night. The answer to that is 
probably not, or perhaps not, because the provision which is in the 
executive branch rules which we voted overwhelmingly to try to pattern 
our new rules after have language which prevents you from accepting 
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 that the Member, officer, or employee is using public office 
for private gain.
  So I want to throw that one element in there because that is a dual 
element. We ought to be aware of it. It is in the executive branch 
rules that, again, we voted a year ago that we would pattern our new 
rules after. But it is in the bill.
  So it is unlikely that you could accept over, and over, and over 
again the $19 contribution, although I am not saying it is impossible. 
I am saying it could create some problems.
  Finally, there is the exception for personal friendship which the 
Senator did not mention. That is a very key exception in the bill, that 
there is an exception for personal friendship. And you have to factor 
that in, be it your daughter, or anybody else. There is a personal 
friendship exemption which it is your judgment to apply, no one else's.
  I think we can get carried away here. I doubt very much that when 
your daughter, or my daughter, comes home from a party, a birthday 
party, with a gift, that anyone is going to suggest that if she is 
invited as a personal friend to that party, which I assume she is, that 
the personal friendship exemption is not going to apply. So I think 
there were three or four errors in the presentation that summarized the 
committee proposal which is before us.
  I have not had a chance to look at the Senator's modification which I 
would like an opportunity to do.
  I had asked the Senator from Alaska if he would yield to me. He was 
kind enough to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me say I regret that we include our 
spouses and our dependent children in legislation like this. I know the 
current rule. But, times have changed. People keep telling us times 
have changed. Our spouses have a right to their own lives. Our children 
have a right to their own lives. I have to wonder about the statement 
made by the Senator from Michigan that the judgment will be strictly 
mine as to whether or not there is a personal relationship. It will not 
be at all.
  As the Senator from Arkansas said, someone will bring a claim to the 
Ethics Committee that my spouse, or my child, took a gift that should 
not have been taken, and we will have to come forward with the defense 
that it was from a personal acquaintance based on personal 
relationship. The statute appears to prohibit such gifts. But then 
there is the exception.
  What I am trying to convey is that if we are going to modernize the 
rule, I believe we ought to modernize our thinking and remember that 
our spouses are entitled to their lives. Our children are entitled to 
their lives. They did not run for the Senate. I did. They ought not to 
be burdened by the approach that is being taken in this bill.
  My first five children that I raised here in Washington have some 
rather firm, fixed opinions about the Senate. Some of you ought to 
inquire from your own children their opinions on these types of rules. 
I know the impressions that my children have formed about this place. 
And, incidentally, none of them live in Washington, and none of them 
are seeking to succeed me.
  Beyond that, I have a question that I want to ask the Senator from 
Michigan. I know that he mentioned earlier today the issue of home 
State products. This is a very serious issue to me.
  My question is whether under the committee-passed substitute 
amendment Members will be able to accept donations of products from 
their home States for use primarily for promotional purposes such as 
display, advertisement, and other public relations activities including 
free distribution to the public, the trade, other press, Members of 
Congress, or other public officials. And, whether any Senator or public 
official may accept a home State product distributed by another Member 
of Congress. While other public officials would be governed by the 
ethics restrictions applicable to their branch or place of employment, 
I want to be certain that there is nothing in this bill which would 
prohibit me from being able to give those individuals a gift of a 
product from my home State of Alaska.
  As many individuals here know, fishing--particularly salmon fishing--
is a very important activity in Alaska and is a product that my State 
is proud to produce. On many occasions I bring back, or my friends or 
constituents bring to Washington fresh salmon. I want to be certain 
that this amendment will not prohibit me from giving fish--which 
averages $20 a pound--to other Members of Congress or cabinet 
officials.
  When I was a whip, Mr. President, I used to have a press lunch twice 
a year, and I brought in the fishery products of my State to 
demonstrate them to the press. I have done that with Members of 
Congress. And I brought in fish that I have given to Members of 
Congress or to other officials or to people who are here in the greater 
Senate family, I would say.
  I particularly am very proud of the salmon, halibut, and king crab I 
bring to Washington. My youngest son is a captain of a king crab boat 
and from time to time I bring some in to share with Members of 
Congress, or with public officials, and members of the military. I hope 
I can continue to do that.
  This is not inexpensive fish, I hasten to explain. The average cost 
of the fish I bring in here--king salmon--is about $20 a pound. I am 
worried about that $20 figure. So my basic question to the Senator from 
Michigan is: Would this amendment allow me to give those individuals a 
gift of a product from my home State of Alaska?
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment would not prohibit the Senator from Alaska 
from receiving fish, or other home State products, and distributing 
them to the public or Members as he sees fit, just as under the current 
law. As to the disclosure requirement, it only applies when you receive 
a home State product valued over $250, and that is not in this bill. 
That is under existing disclosure rules. That is not changed by this 
bill. So I do not think that the Senator has any concern in this 
regard.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding that there is no limit on the 
value of home State products that I can accept as long as the value to 
any individual recipient is minimal.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct except that the financial disclosure 
statute would still apply to the same extent that it does today.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank my friend for that.
  As I speak here, I remember my friend Harry Byrd. I hope he is 
listening, because the original exemption for State products came 
because Harry Byrd used to share with us those wonderful apples he grew 
over in Virginia. I would not want the Harry Byrd exemption to be 
eliminated by this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is not eliminated even inadvertently, or otherwise; it 
is still there.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am going to yield, but I may come back to this spouse 
issue before we finish with this bill. I ask the Senator whether the 
sponsors of this bill received any input from spouses regarding the 
application of these complicated rules to them. There are several who 
are very much involved in the private sector here in Washington and I 
am curious if they have expressed an opinion about the inclusion of 
spouses in this rule at this time?
  Mr. LEVIN. I say, first, to my friend from Alaska that spouses are 
covered under the current rule, so that we have some experience 
relative to the coverage of spouses and dependents under existing 
rules. That is not changed.
  Have the spouses expressed themselves? This is what we did in that 
regard: We sent out to each of the Members a letter, twice, asking for 
comments on this proposed rule. Twice we have sent out a letter to 
every single one of our colleagues, and I assume that each of our 
colleagues would consult with his or her spouse, as I have consulted 
with my spouse. But we thought it was appropriate for each of the 
Members to consult with their own spouse, rather than for us to be 
doing any consultation directly. And we have solicited that response, 
and I might say that as a result of the two letters that went out to 
each Member of this body, we got a total of two responses.
  Mr. STEVENS. My friend from Michigan, I think, may have 
misinterpreted that response.
  My point is that under the current law--and we are currently filling 
out our disclosure forms--all a spouse needs to say is that they had 
income and specifically decline to state the amount of income. The 
Senator is familiar with that. They just state, yes, they did have 
income, but they state, no, they do not wish to disclose. I say to my 
good friend, why should we not have a similar concept here? Why should 
we not have a concept saying there is no reporting of gifts to the 
spouse because she declines to report them?
  Mr. LEVIN. That would require a change in the current gift rule to do 
that.
  Mr. STEVENS. It would require a change under the current gift rule as 
well as a slight modification to this bill. Would the Senator consider 
adopting on the gift rule amendment a concept similar to the disclosure 
rule?
  Mr. LEVIN. I think it would be a mistake, because I think we have 
seen, from experience, that there are situations when spouses are given 
gifts, which become big issues with the Ethics Committee, and the 
committee would have to comment on the kind of change the Senator is 
suggesting. I would want to hear from the chairman of the Ethics 
Committee on the question of whether or not gifts to spouses, under 
current rules, with the restrictions on those gifts, have created 
problems, or have they helped to provide additional confidence in this 
body, that people will not be giving gifts to spouses in lieu of giving 
gifts to us, thereby getting around the gift rule, which has 
restrictions under current law for us.
  But I am not in a good position to give the Senator a definitive 
answer. I can give my own opinion, but I think it would be worthwhile 
to hear from the Ethics Committee people as to whether or not the 
current rule, which covers Members, officers, employees, spouses, or 
dependents thereof, is creating problems in the regard that the Senator 
describes.
  Mr. STEVENS. My memory is that the Ethics Committee has the right to 
waive some of the restrictions under the current rules. Does that 
waiver still pertain to the Senator's amendment?
  I am particularly reminded, as I told the Senate the other day, of 
when I was remarried and my wife and I had to obtain waivers for 
certain wedding gifts. Would the committee's authority to grant waivers 
still exist?
  Mr. LEVIN. There is a suggestion that we put in a limit of $250 on 
gifts, for instance, from personal friends. There is no such limit in 
my bill. So there is no need for that waiver from the Ethics Committee 
under my bill. However, there are a number of Members who feel there 
should be a limit of personal gifts, as under existing law, of $250, 
and that there then should be a waiver which is provided for by the 
Ethics Committee. That amendment has been proposed by a number of our 
colleagues, and I have no particular objection to it, if that is the 
will of the body.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am indebted to the Senator for his 
patience with me. As I understand the Senator's explanation, I believe 
the exemptions, exceptions he has listed, have a different impact on 
spouses and dependents than I perceived when I first began speaking. I 
hope that I have understood correctly. If I have understood correctly, 
the waiver would not be necessary because the personal relationship 
exemption has no limit.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct under the bill as it now stands.
  Mr. STEVENS. I had a case brought to me where a daughter of an 
employee had a gift that she had received for a birthday which was in 
excess of $250. It was a very embarrassing thing really because the 
young lady did not realize she was even covered.
  As I understand it now, if this amendment passes, if that was a 
personal relationship and did not involve obviously a lobbyist or some 
person attempting to get to the Senator--we still have that fear here--
there would be no necessity for a waiver. Is that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.
  Again, I want to alert the Senator that there is an amendment that 
has been proposed, which I am at least willing to accept, which would 
maintain the current limit of $250 on such gifts and provide the same 
waiver as exists under the current laws.
  Mr. STEVENS. When that amendment comes, I will put an amendment on it 
that says that applies to Senators and staff but does not apply to 
spouses or dependents.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first, I want to apologize to the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan because I did misspeak myself when 
I was summarizing his proposal a moment ago. So let me try again so we 
get it right, and the Senator should interrupt me at any time I 
misspeak myself.
  I can go to dinner with a friend as often as I want and if he wants 
to pick up the tab or she wants to pick up the tab and it is 50 bucks, 
that is not a violation.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. A personal friend, that is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I cannot go to dinner with a lobbyist at any price; is 
that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. Is that lobbyist a close personal friend?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I heard the Senator from Michigan say to the Senator 
from Alaska that if a lobbyist is a personal friend then I can.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Only I can make that decision?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. And that can not be challenged by the Ethics Committee?
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Ethics Committee wants to challenge the Senator's 
judgment who a personal friend is, I have more confidence in the Ethics 
Committee. I think the Senator from Arkansas does, too.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me go from meals to gifts. If I take a gift from 
someone who is not a friend but not a lobbyist, I am limited to $20 on 
the value of the gift?
  Mr. LEVIN. With certain exemptions.
  Mr. BUMPERS. With those exemptions?
  Mr. LEVIN. Other exemptions.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If a gift is given to me by a personal friend, am I 
still limited to $20?
  Mr. LEVIN. No.
  Mr. BUMPERS. So I can take a gift of $500 from a personal friend, if 
I want to?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct, and that is what the Senator from 
Alaska and I were just discussing. It is that under our bill there is 
no limit on the amount of a gift you can take from a close personal 
friend.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator says a close personal friend. What is the 
difference between close and personal?
  Mr. LEVIN. We give the definition in the bill. The Senator uses his 
judgment as to whether or not it meets that definition.
  Mr. BUMPERS. OK.
  Mr. LEVIN. There is a proposal, however, that is acceptable to me as 
one Member that we keep the current limit of $250 on a gift from any 
source with a waiver possible from the Ethics Committee. That is the 
current rule which is that you have a maximum of $250 from any source, 
but you can then go and get a waiver. That is acceptable to me if it is 
acceptable to the body. I have no problems with that.
  Now, Senator Stevens said he would want to be on the floor if that 
were offered so he could exclude the spouse and dependents.
  But I can go either way on this one, either the close personal 
friend. You can have a gift without that limit if in your judgment it 
is a close personal friend, or we can restore the current limit of $250 
and then have to go to the Ethics Committee for waivers over that $250.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Well, let us assume somebody brings in a bottle of wine 
to my office that costs 20 bucks and then bring in a bottle every day. 
Does the $250 limitation kick in after the 12th bottle is brought in?
  Mr. LEVIN. Under existing----
  Mr. BUMPERS. No. Under the Senator's proposal. There is no $250, is 
there? There is no limit now, is there?
  Mr. LEVIN. Now, under our proposal----
  Mr. BUMPERS. No. Under the Senator's proposal, there is a $250 limit?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. So if someone wants to give me a $20 bottle of wine 
every day 365 days a year that is not a violation?
  Mr. LEVIN. No. Let me now read the Senator the language.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am talking about nonlobbyist.
  Mr. LEVIN. I understand.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am not talking personal friend. I am talking about 
anybody except a lobbyist.
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me read the language that might apply.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Wait a minute. Forget that language a moment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I cannot. The Senator asked me a question whether or not 
that be would be OK. The answer is not if a reasonable person would be 
led to believe that you are using public office for private gain.
  That is the same, I may say, as the executive branch rule. I want to 
emphasize this. I think it is really important that this body decided a 
year ago that we wanted in general to pattern our gifts on stricter 
executive branch rules.
  The same question can be asked of Secretary Bentsen, the exact same 
question under executive branch rules: Can someone walk into your 
office every day and drop off a bottle of wine worth $20 without 
violating the executive branch rules. And the answer is under the 
Senator's hypothetical situated there not a registered lobbyist, and so 
forth. If that does not create this impression, then they can do it.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If I may, let me say I am not here to debate whether the 
executive rules are stricter or more lenient than ours. I am really not 
concerned about them.
  I am concerned about the ones that my colleagues and I in the U.S. 
Senate are going to have to comply with. The question was: If someone 
leaves a $20 bottle of wine in my office every day with the exception 
of subparagraph 3 of rule 25(1)(3), I could do that. And we get to the 
personal thing.
  What controls here the language says gifts having a value of less 
than $20. I assume that is $20 or less, is it not? Do I have to limit 
the gifts to $19.99?
  Mr. LEVIN. It is $20. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. This paragraph says gifts having a value of less than 
$20. Do you really mean $20?
  Mr. LEVIN. It is $20 or less.
  Mr. BUMPERS. So gifts having a value of less than $20 from the same 
or different sources on a basis so frequent that a reasonable person is 
led to believe the Member or officer or employee is using the public 
office for private gain.
  Let me go back up to the second sentence--``the same or different 
sources.'' What if 20 different people who do not even know each other 
just happen to leave a bottle of wine in my office on, say, five 
different occasions. That is 100 bottles of wine, but not one of those 
people know the other or know that the other has left a bottle of wine 
in my office on that same day, because this says $20 from the same or 
different sources. And then it goes on to say on a basis so frequent 
that a reasonable person--I know the Senator from Michigan is a lawyer, 
I am a lawyer, and we always know that the reasonable-man rule is a 
jury determination; correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is a factual determination. It could be for a judge 
or a jury.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The judge instructs the jury.
  Mr. LEVIN. Whoever the fact finder is. It could be a judge. It is a 
factual question.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reasonable is like beauty, being in the eye of the 
beholder.
  Mr. LEVIN. My friend, who is an awful good lawyer--I do not think I 
have known a better one--does he not agree the reasonable person test 
is used all the time in factual determination all the time? The 
reasonable person test is throughout our rules, throughout the laws. We 
use it all the time and you are under a factual situation. You would 
make a judgment. The Senator would make a judgment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. My judgment may be wrong, and the Ethics Committee may 
say, ``Senator, are you telling me that you thought it was reasonable 
to take a bottle of wine from 20 different people on 5 different 
occasions each for a total of 100 bottles?''
  Mr. LEVIN. The issue is really the same today, because the Senator 
could take gifts now under $100. The question is, does that create any 
kind of impression? If you really had a problem with that, if you in 
your good conscience, and you have a good conscience, had a problem 
with that kind of situation you can do what hundreds of people do 
today. They ask the Ethics Committee.
  As a matter of fact, we heard earlier today that there are so many 
people asking the Ethics Committees for opinions that in the first year 
under the new rule there was something like, if I remember the figure 
was thousands of inquiries under existing rules of the Ethics Committee 
to get opinions on whether or not we should do things.
  Mr. BUMPERS. You are going to increase that to tens of thousands.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is one of the questions, whether or not it will 
increase or not. I do not think there will be that big of an increase.
  Let me answer my friend's question. We now ask the Ethics Committee, 
if we are uncertain about something, for their judgment. We do it all 
the time. I do not think that factual situation is a real one. But if 
it were----
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am being a devil's advocate on that. Obviously, I am 
not going to let somebody bring that many gifts to my office. I am 
talking about possibilities.
  Mr. LEVIN. I understand that. If that is a real possibility, if I 
wanted to accept a bottle of wine every single day worth $20 or less, I 
would ask the Ethics Committee, can I do it?
  But I have to tell you, there is an easy answer to that. I would not 
accept it, and I do not think the Senator from Arkansas would either.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, let us get back to my amendment.
  Can you quarrel with the premise of this amendment, which says that, 
under your provision, I am going to have to be very careful to keep a 
value of a gift under $20?
  As I say, that is tough enough under $100. It is simply not worth it 
for $20.
  And in order to keep from laying the minefields that the Senator from 
Kentucky alluded to yesterday, which is my principal objection to this, 
in order to alleviate that problem and eliminate those minefields, 
everybody in the United States Senate can understand that he or she is 
not to accept a gift, period.
  Now why is that not an easier determination than whether it is worth 
$19.95 or $20.05?
  Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I have been promising to yield to my friend from 
Kentucky. Let me yield to him first.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Arkansas, from an Ethics 
Committee point of view, it is certainly a lot easier to interpret 
that. I think it is also, for each Senator seeking to avoid 
inadvertently destroying his career over a $25 gift, a much easier 
determination to make.
  I have been listening to the discussion. I must say to my friend from 
Arkansas, given the difficulty of enforcement of the Wellstone-Levin 
proposal, as I outlined last night and again today, I would say, Mr. 
President, that the Bumpers amendment is clearly the direction at this 
point in which we ought to go.
  I think it is going to be an administrative nightmare for the Ethics 
Committee and a complete disaster for every Senate office to try to 
determine what is or is not worth $20, dealing with all of these 
exceptions which the Bumpers amendment does not touch. But even that is 
going to be troublesome in terms of what is a friend and what is not a 
friend.
  But at least, it seems to me, in order to try to have some 
simplicity, something at least understandable to the reasonable person, 
and also to cut down, from a selfish point of view here, to cut down on 
the workload of the Ethics Committee, it seems to me we ought to go 
down to zero.
  So I think the Senator from Arkansas has a good idea here, given 
where we are in the course of this debate. So I want to commend him for 
his amendment. I think it is a step in the direction of simplicity.
  And it will, of course, address the concerns of those out there in 
the land who think that we might be for sale for $19 or $15 or for $5. 
And so let us just put everybody's mind at ease. And those who believe 
that we wanted the perception problem as the most important thing 
confronting the Senate--the perception, not the reality, because I 
asked last night for reports of anybody who had sold their vote around 
here for 100 bucks. I have not gotten any. I am still waiting for the 
reports. I was hoping somebody would come and confess so we could 
determine what to do with somebody who had been selling his or her 
vote. I did not get any takers. So I am assuming that nobody here has 
been selling their votes under the existing rule.
  And so I guess the only reason we are engaged in this debate is the 
perception question.
  So it seems to me, Mr. President, that the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas is right on the mark here.
  On the question of perception, what is the difference between $21 and 
$19? A Senator who could be bought for $21 might be purchased for $19, 
as well.
  And so it seems to me what we ought to do now is just go ahead and 
take it down to zero, make it simple, make it understandable, and make 
it, maybe, enforceable.
  And so I commend the Senator from Arkansas for his suggestion. It 
seems to me at this point in the debate that it is the appropriate 
thing to do. I support his amendment and I urge the Senators who cast a 
very tough vote earlier because they felt the Levin-Wellstone measure 
was simply just impossible, unworkable, to now opt for a more simple 
approach. Let us just take it down to zero.
  I thank my friend from Arkansas for his amendment. I think it is a 
very good amendment at this stage of the debate.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am immensely complimented by the kind words of the 
Senator from Kentucky and certainly welcome his support. I thought his 
presentation yesterday afternoon was right on target. It is not that 
anybody in the Senate wants to quarrel with tightening the ethics 
rules. That is not the debate. The debate is how do you do it without 
ensnarling people, innocent people, possibly ruining their careers, 
through sheer inadvertence. I am a trial lawyer. It can happen. I have 
seen it happen so many times.
  Now, having said that, I am ready to vote any minute here, but I 
would like to say, if I could have the attention of the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan, the distinguished Senator from Michigan knows 
that my wife is an activist. She is an activist for peace and she is an 
activist for immunizing children.
  Peace Links is an organization she founded back during the height of 
the cold war. I thought she was going to get me beat with that, but it 
turned out it was a very popular thing and everybody thought it was a 
great idea.
  But one of the ways they raise money is just like the political 
committees. Every December, Peace Links has a big gala. Every year they 
shop for a corporate sponsor to pick up the tab for their galas, and 
then they sell tickets, I do not know, for $250 apiece. But those galas 
have been immensely successful.
  One of the reasons they have been profitable, and I think Peace Links 
has been very successful, is because of the money they raise at their 
silent auction and sale of tickets for Peace Links.
  But let us just assume that Betty calls the Chrysler Corp. and says, 
``How about you all sponsoring our gala this year?'' She explains 
carefully to them what their purpose is, what they have done, what they 
propose to do in the ensuing years. And the cost of the gala will be 
$25,000.
  Chrysler says, ``Well, that sounds like a winner to us. Do we get any 
publicity out of it?''
  ``Yes, we will announce at the gala that you are the corporate 
sponsor of this gala.''
  Betty has labored as long and hard and ventured for peace as anybody 
I have known. If I had her tenacity, I would run for king. She does not 
take a salary. She has never taken a dime during the 12 years of the 
existence of that organization, except for travel and meals when she 
travels.
  They have a staff and they are paid, but she is not. She is 
president.
  So, can she recruit a corporate sponsor for that gala in the future?
  Mr. LEVIN. The answer is yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. She can?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Even if they have a big PAC?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes. The answer is, ``That is correct.''
  Mr. BUMPERS. Tell me precisely, because I want to make sure she does 
not get handcuffs put on her. Why is she exempt?
  Mr. LEVIN. You can solicit. You can solicit from a charity. So could 
she. You cannot solicit from a lobbyist.
  So the answer to your question----
  Mr. BUMPERS. I have to tell you, she is not going to call the 
president of Chrysler. She is going to call their local lobbyist.
  Mr. LEVIN. If you want her to solicit from a lobbyist, or if she does 
solicit from the lobbyist--if you mean under your hypothesis from the 
corporation--that is also permitted.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Say that again, Senator?
  Mr. LEVIN. She can solicit a lobbyist for a charitable contribution. 
You cannot. Both of----
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is that distinction made in your bill?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes, it is, on page 36.
  Mr. BUMPERS. OK.
  Mr. LEVIN. Both of you can solicit a charitable contribution from a 
nonlobbyist.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The same thing--excuse me?
  Mr. LEVIN. I just wanted to--that is OK. I wanted to comment on the 
amendment itself.
  Perhaps I could do this now. Is it the Senator's intent to have the 
same exceptions as are in the pending substitute?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Absolutely.
  Mr. LEVIN. May I suggest, then, that we have a quorum call so the 
Senator can take a look at his modified amendment? Because I believe it 
does not have that effect, which I think is his intent.
  If this is going to be voted on and perhaps approved, it should carry 
out the intent. I would like, if there is no objection--there might be 
--but after other Senators who wish to speak, speak, I would like to 
put in a quorum call and go over the technical aspects with you.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is fine, Senator. I am willing to do that. But let 
me ask you a second question.
  Betty Ford and Rosalynn Carter have an organization called Every 
Child By 2. They have been circling this country for about 4 years, 
trying to raise the awareness levels of people all over the country 
about the necessity of having the children immunized. Foundations, 
lobbyists, corporations--all contribute to Every Child By 2.
  There again, she does not take a salary. Only travel and so on. I do 
not know--I assume it is a 503(c) corporation. Let us just assume for a 
moment that it is, a charitable corporation. I know Peace Links is.
  Is it the same situation? Would it make any difference if she took a 
salary? What if she is getting $50,000 a year as director?
  Mr. LEVIN. It would make no difference.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Still no problem? Now, Senator, let me ask you, before 
we put in a quorum call, so we can all understand this, what is the 
Senator's concern about the modification?
  Mr. LEVIN. That if it is the Senator's intention to keep the 
exceptions that are in the bill before us, the substitute of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, that we believe that intention is not 
implemented in the way in which the substitute is framed; that there 
are many technical problems with the substitute in carrying out what I 
believe the Senator's intent to be and what he stated his intent to be. 
We would like to just spend a few minutes with my colleague going over 
his substitute and going over his modified amendment to show his staff 
and the Senator from Arkansas where the problem is, technically, in 
implementing his intent. That is the only reason for doing that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I 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. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, once again we have ventured into the 
treacherous shoals of self-regulation.
  In my 33 years in the Senate, we have ventured into this area many 
times, and I have always tried to support reforms that will benefit the 
Senate as an institution.
  In my view, the Senate is a group of honest, hard-working people who 
have no desire to use their office for personal gain. And I have always 
believed that the best way to monitor our integrity is through public 
exposure.
  Today, as in the past, we are responding to the public's perception 
of the political process and the public's presumption of what our 
standards and motives may be.
  These perceptions and presumptions should be honored and dealt with, 
to be sure, but we should be under no illusion that they can be 
neutralized or satisfied by legislative fiat.
  In the final analysis, the only way to change or disprove public 
perceptions and presumptions is for each of us to demonstrate integrity 
in all our actions.
  Guidelines and rules are helpful, to be sure. But it seems to me that 
the best guidelines are the simplest.
  I always liked the simple, basic rule on gifts that was propounded by 
our late colleague, Senator Paul Douglas: ``Don't accept anything 
unless it can be eaten, drunk or smoked within a week.''
  I am troubled by the fact that the legislation before us today is 28 
pages in length, including line after line of complicated exceptions.
  The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] was quite persuasive, I 
thought, when he described the possible burdens that may accrue to the 
Ethics Committee as a result, including such minutia as interpreting 
the definition of a doughnut.
  It was for this reason that I voted in favor of the McConnell 
amendment, and would have preferred it to the Levin substitute.
  But not we are left with that more comprehensive underlying measure. 
I wish it were simpler.
  The Levin substitute does have redeeming features. One of the most 
significant, to my mind, is the prohibition on acceptance of elaborate 
and luxurious recreational trips at lobbyists' expense.
  And the basic intent of the legislation certainly is praiseworthy, 
namely to remove extraneous and improper influence from the legislative 
process.
  In doing so, however, I fear that the sponsors would cast far too 
fine a net, which could result in unduly intrusive enforcement.
  I hope the conferees, in their wisdom, will move us a few steps 
closer to the precepts of Paul Douglas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa 
[Mr. Grassley].

                          ____________________