[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.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my good colleagues, Senator Levin 
and Senator Cohen, for their work on this legislation which so vexes 
all of us, and we will return now to that remarkable project.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers].
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I withdraw the modification of my 
amendment that I previously sent to the desk.


                    Amendment No. 1678, As Modified

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that privilege.
  The amendment is modified accordingly.
  The amendment (No. 1678), as modified, is as follows:

       Strike line 7 on page 35 through line 25 on page 51 of the 
     Committee substitute, and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:

     ``or the spouse thereof, shall knowingly accept (1) any gift 
     provided directly or indirectly by any person registered as a 
     lobbyist or a foreign agent under the Federal Regulation of 
     Lobbying Act, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or any 
     successor statute;
       (2) any gift from any other 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 clause (2) 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.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSE RULES.

       Clause 4 of Rule XLIII of the House of Representatives is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``4. (a)(1) No Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
     Representatives, or the spouse or dependent thereof, shall 
     knowingly accept--
     ``(A) any gift provided directly or indirectly by any person 
     registered as a lobbyist or a foreign agent under the Federal 
     Regulation of Lobbying Act, the Foreign Agents Registration 
     Act, or any successor statute;
       ``(B) any gift from any other person; or
       ``(2) For the purpose of this clause, the term `gift' means 
     any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, 
     loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value. The 
     term includes gifts of service, training, transportation, 
     lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind, by purchase of 
     a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement after the 
     expense has been incurred.
       ``(3)(A) The following items are gifts subject to the 
     restrictions in subparagraph (1)--
       ``(i) a financial contribution or an expenditure relating 
     to a conference, retreat, or similar event for or on behalf 
     of Members, officers, or employees; and
       ``(ii) a charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made in lieu of 
     an honorarium.
       ``(B) The following items are subject to the restrictions 
     in subparagraph (1)(A)--
       ``(i) an item provided by a lobbyist or a foreign agent 
     which is paid for, charged to, or reimbursed by a client of 
     such lobbyist or foreign agent;
       ``(ii) an item provided by a lobbyist or a foreign agent to 
     an entity that is maintained or controlled by a Member, 
     officer, or employee;
       ``(iii) a charitable contribution made on the basis of 
     designation, recommendation, or other specification made to a 
     lobbyist or a foreign agent by a Member, officer, or 
     employee, and
       ``(iv) a contribution and other payment by a lobbyist or 
     foreign agent to a legal expense fund established for the 
     benefit of a Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(4) The following items are not gifts subject to the 
     restrictions in subparagraph (1):
       ``(A) Any item for which the Member, officer, or employee 
     pays the market value.
       ``(B) A contribution, a defined in the Federal Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully made under 
     that Act.
       ``(C) Anything provided under circumstances that clearly 
     indicate, in accordance with paragraph (b)(1), that it is 
     provided for a nonbusiness purpose and is motivated by a 
     family relationship or personal friendship and not by the 
     position of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(D) Items which are not used and which are promptly 
     returned to the donor.
       ``(E) A food or refreshment item of minimal value, such as 
     a soft drink, coffee, or doughnut offered other than as part 
     of a meal.
       ``(F) Benefits resulting from the business or employment 
     activities of the spouse of a Member, officer, or employee, 
     if such benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of 
     the official position of such Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(G) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued 
     participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan 
     maintained by a former employer.
       ``(H) Informational materials that are sent to the office 
     of the Member, officer, or employee in the form of books, 
     articles, periodicals, other written materials; audio tapes, 
     videotapes, or other forms of communication.
       ``(5) The restrictions in clause (B) of Subparagraph (1) 
     shall not apply to the following:
       ``(A) Meals, lodging, and other benefits--

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the distinguished floor manager 
yield, either floor manager, for a question? I understand that we 
cannot vote until 10 minutes later. Is that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. It will be later than that. We are trying to figure that 
out now. We cannot figure out when to set a vote. That is what we are 
trying to clear on both sides.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COHEN. Do we have a copy of the amendment of the Senator from 
Arkansas as redrafted?
  Mr. BUMPERS. We will certainly get a copy. It is precisely the same 
amendment. It was a technical thing that we were working on to make 
sure the paragraphs were numbered correctly.
  Mr. COHEN. I understand that. We have one Member who would like to 
see a copy of the amendment as drafted before we can agree to vote 
soon, hopefully.
  Mr. BUMPERS. We will get it for the Senator in a minute.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in deference to the floor managers, I 
would like to advise them that I have two amendments that I am prepared 
to bring up at an appropriate time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator from Arkansas yield just for a question 
as to his amendment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would be happy to.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much debate does he want on his amendment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. None.
  Mr. LEVIN. We can be very brief in terms of your amendment, and then 
perhaps you could lay it aside if there is no further debate on your 
amendment. I would try to figure out when we can vote on it. And we 
will turn to the amendment of the Senator from Alaska. Would that be 
agreeable?
  Mr. COHEN. I think once we have the amendment and we take this time 
to debate it, we ought to vote on it before we proceed to the 
amendments of the Senator from Alaska or anybody else.
  Mr. LEVIN. In that case, we will need to put in a quorum call so we 
can get that amendment duplicated.
  Mr. COHEN. Can we discuss it now while we are waiting?
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Arkansas can stay on the floor, I want 
to see if we can understand the purpose of the amendment. It is to 
basically eliminate the $20 rule to go to zero so that no gifts would 
be allowed of any value except for the very same exceptions which are 
in the bill as presently before the Senate.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is correct. We did not change the substance 
of the amendment. We only drafted it so that it was more technically 
correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I do not believe that not being able to accept gifts under 
$20 meets my test of what we were trying to achieve here, something 
which is tough, simple, and rational. I think the reason for the $20 
exception was precisely the same reason as the Senator from Arkansas 
uses in saying that he wishes to eliminate it. I believe we will get 
far more Members tripped up when they have to figure out whether an 
exception applies to all the gifts that we get under $20. But the will 
of the body obviously is that we eliminate the $20 gift limitation. I 
can live with that gracefully. I think it is going to create more 
difficulties for us than it is going to solve. I think it will be more 
complex, not simpler.
  The Senator from Arkansas seeks simplicity. When he eliminates the 
possibility of getting a hamburger and a Coke from somebody, unless a 
certain test is met, I think he is going to do exactly opposite of what 
he purports to do, which is to have simplicity for all of us.
  So I do not think it is a simple or even a rational approach, 
frankly. It is not as rational as having a $20 rule. The proof of this 
I believe is that the executive branch has had a $20 gift rule in 
effect. It has worked. It has worked for Cabinet officers. It has 
worked for other people in the executive branch.
  There is no reason why it cannot work for us. It will save us an 
awful lot of headaches in trying to figure out whether or not all 
exceptions apply for all the little things. That was the same argument 
used earlier today as to why we ought to have a $75 gift limit instead 
of a $20 gift limit.
  So the question then is where do we draw the line? That is the 
question for all of us. I think that the proof of the pudding is in the 
executive branch edict, and that is the best guideline that we have as 
to what is workable without getting us into figuring out whether or not 
exceptions apply every time we get a commemorative cup from a 
constituent.
  But I understand what the Senator is trying to do. While I do not 
think it meets the test of being simple and rational as well as tough, 
nonetheless, if that is the will of the body, we go down to zero and 
apply the exceptions in every single case when we get a cup or a pin. 
So be it. If that is what it takes to get gift reform, so be it. I am 
for tough gift reform. It surely meets that test--the toughness part of 
it. If that is what it takes to get tough gift reform, then let us get 
on with it.
  Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield? I am prepared to entertain his 
original unanimous consent request to set aside the amendment of the 
Senator from Arkansas temporarily because I am now advised that we will 
not be able to vote probably prior to 8:30 at least. So why do we not 
go ahead with other amendments?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, if the Senator will allow 
me just to make a quick response to the Senator from Michigan--and I 
understand precisely what the Senator is saying. We just come to 
different conclusions about this. If a gift comes into my office, and I 
do not know what its value is, therefore, I do not know whether to keep 
it or return it. I know my secretary. She will call Woodies. Let us 
just assume that they say that gift sells here for $18.95. Then she 
calls Hecht's. Then she calls Hecht's, and they say, ``We sell that for 
$24.95.''

  I do not want to get trapped because there is one below $20 and one 
above $20. It is infinitely easier from a time standpoint to just send 
it back, with a nice letter, saying that under the rules we are not 
permitted to accept gifts.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is true wherever we draw the line.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is much simpler, and I have not laid a minefield 
for myself. I am not going to be criticized for receiving $20, which 
somebody might do under the case I just gave you.
  Mr. LEVIN. Except the Senator would have to see whether all the 
exceptions apply to every pen and cup--
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is arguing against his own bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. We have to draw a line somewhere. You draw a line, and you 
keep all the exceptions.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am giving an illustration where none of the exceptions 
apply, where somebody sends a gift to my office, it does not meet any 
of the exceptions under the Senator's bill, and I have to determine 
whether to hurt the guy's feelings by sending it back, or going all 
over town trying to figure out what it is worth, and making sure 
somebody does not put the handcuffs on me because it turned out to be 
worth $25 instead of $19.
  Mr. LEVIN. Wherever the line is drawn, you are going to have the same 
thing.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I have no objection to the unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the 
amendment of the Senator from Arkansas, and that the Chair recognize 
the junior Senator from Alaska who, I believe, is ready with an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Reserving the right to object. Can you tell us when we 
are going to vote here? Is it that nobody wants to vote on the Bumpers 
amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is not the problem. There are schedules being aligned 
here. There is a request to see the Bumpers amendment on the other side 
before there is a vote. Copies are being made now so that persons who 
want to see that amendment before they vote on it will have an 
opportunity to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COHEN. The answer is that it is going to be a while.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. It would be nice if somebody could tell us how long 
``a while'' is so we might do something else. I realize that would be 
really quite a phenomenon in this body to know that.
  Mr. COHEN. It is approximately $20 or under.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Can I interpret that to be minutes?
  Mr. LEVIN. I agree with the Senator. I wish we could tell him. There 
is a request to look at the amendment before an agreement is made as to 
when to vote. Until Senators have a chance to look at the amendment and 
make that decision, we cannot get a unanimous consent agreement for a 
fixed time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying the amendment of 
the Senator from Arkansas aside so the amendments by the Senator from 
Alaska can be taken up?
  Mr. LEVIN. Can we take up one amendment at a time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to discuss both, and then I will 
introduce one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have two amendments that I intend to 
offer. The first amendment would prohibit all political contributions 
from political action committees. The legislation would specifically 
prohibit a Senator from accepting any gift, directly or indirectly, 
from a political action committee.
  The other amendment that I will offer would strike from the committee 
substitute, provisions which prohibit Members of Congress from 
receiving private reimbursement for travel, food, and lodging, in 
connection with a charitable event.
  It is my understanding that the committee managers have accepted an 
amendment allowing honoraria to be directed entirely to charity. We 
have a situation under my amendment where such reimbursements would be 
permitted, as long as the reimbursement was not made by a registered 
lobbyist or a foreign agent.
  Mr. President, the apparent motivation for the committee legislation 
is, in my opinion, the mistaken belief that lobbyists and so-called 
special interest groups exercise undue influence on Members of 
Congress. That is a perception that the American public has. To 
counteract this so-called undue influence, the committee amendment 
would bar Members from receiving anything of value from a registered 
lobbyist. But the exception, Mr. President, is not political 
contributions; political contributions can still come in. And the bill 
restricts gifts from individuals, or other entities, in an amount not 
in excess of $20. So when we pass the bill that is before us, we can 
now go to the American public and let them know that we can no longer 
receive gifts from lobbyists and corporate interests.
  Well, I ask the question: Is that really what we are doing? Let me 
ask: Is there anything in this underlying bill that would prohibit a 
lobbyist from sponsoring a $500 personal political fundraiser for a 
Member of Congress? The answer is clearly ``no.''
  Travel can be paid in the case of a contribution coming in for a $500 
political fundraiser. Is there anything in this bill, the underlying 
bill, that would prohibit an individual who is not a lobbyist from 
making a contribution of several hundred dollars to a Senator or a 
Congressman's legal defense fund? No. We have protected ourselves in 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. President, this legislation is not going to do a single thing, in 
the mind of the Senator from Alaska, to change the public's perception 
of Congress with regard to the influence of lobbyists and PAC's. And I 
am quite sure of that, because if you look at the underlying bill, we 
have exempted our political fundraisers.
  Also, we have protected ourselves by allowing contributions, when 
necessary, for our legal defense fund. So if we pass this underlying 
legislation in its current form, we are going to make it even more 
difficult for a very legitimate group of recipients--and that is 
charitable organizations--to arrange events that serve to raise money 
for their specific causes.
  Mr. President, under the committee substitute--and this is what is so 
unfair about it, and I urge my colleagues to reflect on this--large 
charitable organizations that have the resources to have their 
fundraisers here in Washington, DC, will be able to invite Members of 
Congress to their events, because under the underlying committee 
amendment, a Member of Congress may accept an offer to attend such an 
event, even if the event is a $1,000-a-plate dinner to raise funds for 
research on a particular worthwhile cause, an illness, or what have 
you. But in my case, if there is a small nonprofit organization trying 
to raise money in my State of Alaska, such as the charitable event I 
discussed this morning, raising money for a new mammogram machine so 
Alaskan women can receive adequate screening, Senators cannot come up 
to my State, because the cost of traveling and staying in Alaska cannot 
be paid or reimbursed by a private entity.
  Earlier today, other Senators discussed charitable events they have 
been associated with, but they no longer will be able to attend. My 
amendment is very narrow and very similar to the amendment that was 
accepted by the committee and offered by my friend from Wyoming. My 
amendment would allow reimbursements for lodging and transportation in 
connection with charitable events only. These events obviously have to 
be cleared by the Rules, and the Ethics Committee. These events do not 
benefit Senators, specifically, as do political fundraisers, and legal 
defense funds.
  We are protecting those, but we are not allowing charitable events. 
These charitable events are worthwhile and I believe to be in the 
public interest.
  I cannot understand, Mr. President, why we seem to have a double 
standard around here. One standard is for political events where travel 
and lodging can be reimbursed, and another standard is for charitable 
events where expenses cannot be reimbursed.
  I would be interested in the floor managers addressing the 
justification for that.
  Mr. President, the amendment that I will propose is narrowly crafted, 
unlike the broad amendment that we voted on this morning, the Johnston-
McConnell amendment which was rejected. That amendment would have 
permitted Senators to receive gifts up to $150, would have permitted 
Senators to receive meals without any limit on the cost of the meal. 
And it would have allowed Senators to receive gifts such as tickets to 
the Redskins game.
  My amendment simply affects the ability of Senators to assist 
charities in raising money. It has no impact on the committee 
substitute's limits on gifts to Senators.
  So, Mr. President, I reiterate that what we have is a double 
standard. The logic of that continuing when there are worthwhile 
charities that we can assist and help should convince my colleagues to 
support my amendment.
  The other amendment would prohibit all political contributions from 
political action committees. This legislation prohibits a Senator in 
this body from accepting a gift directly or indirectly from, as I have 
said, a political action committee. The amendment merely adds this 
prohibition to include what some would consider a very important type 
of gift, a political contribution from a political action committee.
  I would anticipate the support of my colleagues with regard to the 
underlying bill and those who have expressed concern about special 
interests and influence peddling that we have heard so much about in 
this body. We have heard the Senator from Arkansas say Senators should 
not take any gifts of any kind. Then let us include political action 
committees and be done with it.
  This is a logical extension of the purpose of this bill.


                           Amendment No. 1679

                (Purpose: To prohibit PAC contributions)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration at this time. The amendment would prohibit all 
political contributions from political action committees. I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daschle). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1679.

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

       On page 36, after line 24, add the following:
       ``(E) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is made by a 
     lobbyist, foreign agent, or political action committee to a 
     Member.
       On page 37, line 7, before the period insert ``except as 
     provided in subparagraph (c)(2)(E)''.
       On page 50, between lines 16 and 17, add the following:
       ``(v) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is made by a 
     lobbyist, foreign agent, or political action committee to a 
     Member.
       On page 50, line 23, before the period insert ``except as 
     provided in subparagraph (3)(B)(v)''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Unanimous-Consent Request

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
Senator Bumpers' Amendment No. 1678, as further modified, occur at 9:30 
p.m. with no amendments in order to the Bumpers amendment or the 
language proposed to be stricken by the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not 
sure that I heard this request right.
  The Senate has conducted one vote today. That vote was held at 1:58 
this afternoon. Now we are at almost 10 minutes after 8, and there is a 
unanimous-consent request, never announced before, never hinted at 
before, that we are not going to be voting until 9:30 p.m.
  May I ask the distinguished manager of the bill if there is any 
conceivable explanation for this kind of scheduling?
  Mr. LEVIN. I think the request is from the Senator's side. We need 15 
minutes or so. If he would check with the manager on his side, I think 
he can give the Senator the answer to the question. He would have to 
ask him for his reasons.
  Mr. DANFORTH. I will ask the manager on my side if there is any 
possible explanation for the Senate having one vote at 1:58 in the 
afternoon and then at 10 minutes after 8 having a unanimous-consent 
request to hold the next vote at 9:30 at night?
  Mr. STEVENS. I might say to my friend I cannot tell him why there has 
not been a vote since the time he just said, around 1 o'clock. I can 
tell him why the vote is not going to take place until 9:30. That is 
because there is a very distinguished visitor to our country who has 
asked several Members of the Senate to attend a dinner. That is where 
they are, and they will be able to come back at 9:30.
  Mr. DANFORTH. If I may inquire, could this have been announced at 
some point before 10 after 8 so that other Senators could have gotten 
in on the news and perhaps have gone home for dinner and then returned?
  Mr. STEVENS. We were prepared to vote prior to 8 o'clock. Since it 
could not take place at 8 o'clock, they asked if they could go to that 
event and they can be back by 9:30. We asked that the vote take place 
at 9:30 as a convenience to those Senators who accepted that 
invitation. They are going and they are going to excuse themselves and 
come back and be here for the vote at 9:30.
  Mr. DANFORTH. If I could inquire further, could there be any thought 
of perhaps holding the vote tomorrow morning during daylight hours?
  Mr. STEVENS. I would be pleased to give it a thought, but I do not 
think I was asked to consent to that.
  Mr. LEVIN. That was at the request of the leadership.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Could I ask the distinguished manager of the bill, or 
either of the managers of the bill, but particularly the Senator from 
Michigan, if that inquiry might be put to the leadership?
  Mr. LEVIN. The inquiry can be. But we are debating the Murkowski 
amendments right now, so this time will be well utilized.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Why not debate the Murkowski amendments right now and 
then have votes tomorrow morning?
  Mr. LEVIN. Well, the delay of the vote until 9:30, I believe, was an 
accommodation to someone on your side. That may be inaccurate.
  In any event, we are happy to debate the Murkowski amendments right 
now. We are going to fully use this time as soon as we can get to the 
Murkowski amendments.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Would the Senator consider the possibility of debating 
the Murkowski amendments right now and then having votes tomorrow on 
the Murkowski amendments?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am not scheduling the Senate. That is up to the 
leadership to schedule the Senate. I am happy to debate the Murkowski 
amendments right now.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Has the Senator from Michigan inquired of the 
leadership about this matter?
  Mr. LEVIN. I have not. I am sure the leadership is listening.
  Mr. DANFORTH. I am not sure the leadership is listening.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think the leadership is listening now.
  Mr. DANFORTH. I might suggest to the Senator from Michigan, it is 
enough to persuade the yet unpersuaded to retire.
  Mr. LEVIN. Are there such left in the Senate?
  Mr. DANFORTH. Not many.
  Mr. DECONCINI. Would the Senator from Missouri yield?
  Mr. DANFORTH. Yes.
  Mr. DECONCINI. I have the same problem, sitting around here for all 
this time, when now we find out why. I mean I understand sometimes you 
want to accommodate people so they can go to a dinner, and next year 
they will not be able to go to these dinners.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is not what I said. They were prepared to vote and 
stay until 8 o'clock.
  Mr. FORD. I think the galleries ought to be kept in order, the same 
as the Senate floor.
  Mr. DECONCINI. The point is, we obviously run this body for the 
convenience of a few Senators, and probably that has happened for me. I 
cannot remember it ever happening for me, but I will just say it has.
  But it seems to me not unreasonable to say at 6 o'clock, if we do not 
vote before 8 o'clock, then we cannot vote until 9:30, so then somebody 
would have some idea of what in the world we are doing around here. 
Because it was pretty clear to me we were not going to vote before 8 
o'clock, the way the debate was going.
  Now the Senator from Missouri raises really a valid question. If we 
are going to hang around here for another hour and 15 or 20 minutes, 
why not do it tomorrow? We have been told there very likely will be 
votes on this or other subject matters. I just think the legislation is 
so darn silly anyway, in many respects, but the actions out here are 
even worse; that we cannot find out until 8 o'clock that, by gosh, the 
vote has to be at 9:30 now. And why? Because other Senators have to go 
to dinner with some dignitary.
  I mean, there are a few Senators who would like to go to dinner 
without some dignitary; maybe with their families, maybe with their 
friends, or maybe just by themselves, but they cannot. They have to sit 
around here and wait until this kind of scenario is played out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. DANFORTH. Further reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Let me ask, then, the manager if he anticipates that 
the 9:30 vote will be the final vote tonight?
  Mr. LEVIN. I do not anticipate it will be the final vote tonight. I 
believe if this unanimous-consent request is agreed to, we will vote on 
the Bumpers amendment at 9:30. Hopefully, we will have completed 
debate, or be close to the completion of debate, on the Murkowski 
amendments by then. I would hope we would then vote on the Murkowski 
amendments. It would be up to the leadership, not up to me, as to 
whether we go later tonight and dispose of the other amendments.
  But it would be my intention, subject to the agreement of the 
leadership, that we dispose of at least the Bumpers amendment, the 
Murkowski amendments, and any other amendments we can.
  Mr. DANFORTH. I might suggest, instead of voting at 9:30, as long as 
we are shooting the night, we vote at 10, and then those who want to go 
out to dinner now can have a little window and go out to dinner and be 
back at 10.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan retains the floor.
  There is a unanimous-consent request pending. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Yes, reserving the right to object.
  I would like to see the time changed, also. As long as we are going 
to change it for a few Senators who are going out to dinner with some 
dignitary and cannot get back here until 9:30, I would like to go out 
with some nondignitary and not get back until 10 o'clock, or tomorrow 
morning for that matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arizona object?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection to 10 o'clock. I understood it to be 
10 o'clock tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan retains the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may make a point to the floor managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Michigan yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The question is, I do not know whether the floor 
manager was invited to the dinner that the Senator from Maine has gone 
to, but the Senator from Alaska was invited to that dinner and, in the 
interest of full disclosure, rejected the invitation so I could be here 
to debate my amendment.
  So I defer to the Senator from Arizona who has suggested that there 
is some inequity here, and the Senator from Missouri who suggested 
there is some inequity. But there is mixed bag here with regard to 
dinner. I am probably as hungry as the Senator from Arizona.
  But the record should note that, while there is inconvenience to all, 
it is for all kinds of different reasons.
  With that profound statement, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have been here for 8 years as assistant leader and I 
think I have protected, at some time or another, every Senator for a 
similar request, a very important engagement, for a period of an hour 
and a half. I do not really understand this.
  I ask the time be extended to 10 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the Bumpers amendment occur at 10 o'clock instead of at 9:30, under the 
same terms and conditions as previously set forth in the unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. FORD. We will just stay here for awhile.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is already heard.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I suggest everybody go out to dinner and then come back 
and report whether a lobbyist paid for it or not.
  Let me renew a request--and I am not managing the bill, but I would 
like to move it along and I think everybody else would, too.
  Let me renew the request that the vote on the Bumpers amendment occur 
at 9:45, and that at 5 minutes after 10, we vote on the Murkowski 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Alaska has proposed an amendment. Does he seek 
recognition?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska has submitted his amendment. 
It has been read by the clerk. I have discussed it. I would be happy to 
enter into a debate on the merits, but I see nobody rising, so I will 
continue to make a few points that I feel are appropriate.
  Again, let me share with my colleagues the effect of the amendment 
which would prohibit all political contributions from political action 
committees.
  Mr. President, the legislation is very simple in prohibiting Senators 
from accepting any gift directly or indirectly from any political 
action committee. I think it is fair to say that, as we look at how 
this body is perceived, it is seen as under the influence of lobbyists 
and political action committees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  I think we would all agree we have been spending a good deal of time 
discussing the role of influential groups, lobbyists and political 
action committees.
  So, in view of the theme that we seem to be pursuing tonight on doing 
away with all gifts of any kind, I think it is quite appropriate that 
we go all the way and address the concerns that we all anguish about. 
And one of them, of course, is the continued contributions of political 
action committees and the influence of lobbyists, as well.
  So my amendment, Mr. President, merely adds the prohibition to 
include what some would consider, again, a very important type of gift, 
and that is a political contribution from political action 
committees. I think it is a logical extension of the discussion that we 
have had on the floor today. I can talk further, at length, about the 
inconsistencies we seem to continue to foster here as we address how to 
improve some of the standards within the Senate.

  Again, I reflect on the reality that we have a double standard here. 
We have standards for political events where travel and lodging can be 
reimbursed, and another standard for charitable events. As a 
consequence of this self-searching effort to bring about substantial 
reform, I think it appropriate that political action committees be 
included in the prohibition.
  It is a very simple amendment, and I recognize it is going to cause 
some of our colleagues, perhaps, some distress. But if we are talking 
about true reform, then this should be included. It is appropriate, I 
think, it be recognized for its merits.
  Mr. President, I do not have any extended remarks because the 
amendment is self-evident. I would be happy to debate my colleagues who 
may have strong feelings about the merits of the amendment. But I think 
it certainly has a place in the dialog and the general considerations 
of the themes before us. So I have no further statement. I will be 
happy to respond to questions from my colleagues on the justification 
for the prohibition.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Will you tell me a little bit about the dinner tonight 
you are missing? I am really intrigued about that. Is it for the Prime 
Minister of Malaysia? Is that right?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe that is correct. I believe it was a dinner 
invitation. I know the honored guest was the President of Malaysia.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. It is none of my business. If the Senator feels he 
does not want to answer or does not know, I understand. Does he know 
who was paying for the dinner, just out of curiosity?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In response to the Senator from Arizona, I did not ask 
and did not think to ask. But in the future I am going to be reminded 
to ask, because the Senator from Arizona raises a very appropriate 
point, whether it was a friend who was paying for the dinner----
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Friend, yes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Lobbyist, political action committee, or maybe it was 
the Malaysian President himself. I do not know.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. If the Senator would yield, does the Senator know--I 
think the Senator sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, does he not?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator does.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Does the Senator know, do we give any foreign 
assistance to Malaysia?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think there is some foreign assistance to Malaysia. 
The Senator raises an interesting point, whether that would be a 
conflict of interest.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I am not accusing anybody of anything, of course. I 
was just speculating.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Arizona sits as head of the 
Intelligence Committee. Maybe the Senator from Arizona and the 
Intelligence Committee could look into that.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I thank the Senator. He, having been on the 
Intelligence Committee, knows how much we can do in that area.
  Let me ask the Senator something else, if it is not inappropriate, 
and I will rely on the Senator's judgment. How many Senators were 
invited or how many were in attendance, does the Senator know?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska has no idea how many were 
invited. The Senator is under the impression it was a relatively small 
group. Maybe we can get the answer for the Senator from Arizona by a 
show of hands of who was not invited.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I do not know if we can do that without a motion. I 
thank the Senator.
  I do not mean to shortchange his amendment by any means. It was just 
curiosity here. While we sit here, there are 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 or 
whatever, Senators having dinner with the Prime Minister of Malaysia 
and we knew that--somebody knew that was going to happen. The Senator 
from Alaska did, and elected to stay here and offer his amendment. I 
commend him for doing that.
  While the rest of us could have gone out or gone home and had dinner 
and done something, it would have been very easy for us just to be told 
that between 8 and 9:30 there is going to be an effort here that no 
votes occur, instead of telling us at 8:20 or whatever it is, it is not 
going to occur. They might have told us at 6 o'clock, and I am sure it 
would have made life a little bit different for me and maybe other 
people here. But I realize the quality of life is not the motivation of 
this body by any means--or maybe by Senators. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In the interests of full disclosure to the Senator 
from Arizona, I might admit, had I known the Senate would be in this 
particular predicament, I might have accepted the invitation of the 
Prime Minister of Malaysia, enjoyed a nice dinner, and still have been 
able to come back and debate my amendment.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Let me say to the Senator, I want to compliment the 
Senator from Alaska for his extra effort in full disclosure. How many 
Senators have you heard get up on the floor and fully disclose that 
they were invited to a dinner, and that the Senate now has been set 
aside and nothing is going to happen while some of them did not go, and 
you could have gone and been part of that imposition on the rest of us, 
and you elected to stay here and offer your amendment.
  I am sincere about this. I do not want the Senator to think I am 
spoofing. I want to thank him for his diligence.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Clearly the Senators that are at the dinner had some 
advanced knowledge, or at least a premonition, of what we might be 
doing at approximately 8:25 tonight. They chose to try and arrange for 
a unanimous consent for a vote at a later time. It looks like they have 
been successful in that regard. So perhaps all the Senator from Alaska 
can reflect on is that I have not missed too many meals lately. This 
one will probably not hurt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________