[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]

 
                Amendment No. 1680 to Amendment No. 1679

   (Purpose: To reduce the pay of Members of Congress by 15 percent)

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
Murkowski amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1680 to amendment numbered 1679:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law the pay of 
     Members of Congress shall be reduced by 15% effective 
     immediately.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I think we have looked at the accumulation 
of debt, as was reported by the Senator from Iowa. This date is noted 
across the country as Tax Freedom Day and the deficit continues and the 
accumulation of debt continues. This is the latest it has ever come in 
the year, the 4th day of May, 2 days longer than a year ago. So I think 
what we are looking for here is, if we are really serious about taking 
not only what the subject of this bill has been, but also some fiscal 
responsibility--I have long believed that if Congress really and 
earnestly is concerned about accountability and responsibility, there 
are two things that should be done. This is what I am told when I go 
home.
  First, any legislation that is passed by Congress and signed into law 
by the President, and as a result, that law goes to a faceless 
bureaucracy to write the administrative rules--once the rules have been 
written and they are entered into the Federal Register they become the 
law of the land. So Members of Congress go home and one day they find 
out from their constituency, ``Look at this law that you have passed. 
Look what it has done to me.''
  So Members of Congress look at it and they say, ``When we passed it, 
that was not the intent of the law.''
  I suggest on some pieces of legislation, after those rules are 
written, they should come back to the Congress for the final OK by the 
Congress. That is one.
  For responsibility and accountability--for what we have said was a 
pay raise here a couple of years ago to bring some more accountability 
to this body--if we want to vote late at night and worry about who is 
going to dinner, and who is not--then I think maybe that should be 
reflected in the pay of the people who serve in this body.
  The other day I raised a little Cain about bonuses that went to the 
Social Security people, bonuses that went to people who have not worked 
in the Social Security but for 2\1/2\ to 3 months and end up with a 
$9,000 bonus.
  Do you think they earned it? I do not think so, especially when 
Social Security comes to Congress asking for more money so they can 
catch up on the backlog of disability payments. So as a result of that, 
they are not showing their responsibility. Maybe we who are elected 
should show ours.
  So I offer this amendment as a 15-percent pay cut for Members of 
Congress as a second-degree amendment to the Murkowski amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to speak very briefly on the second-
degree amendment offered by my friend from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think our friend from Montana has 
brought up an appropriate consideration relative to the realities that 
we live in, and that is this Nation has accrued approximately $4.5 
trillion of debt.
  The significance of that is often overlooked because it is pretty 
hard to comprehend that kind of a number. But let me share with my 
colleagues a certain reality associated with that, and that is, about 
14 percent of our current budget is interest on our accumulated debt.
  That does not mean much, but let us take it one step further and 
recognize that we are committed to fund interest on that debt. The 
question legitimately is, how are we funding that interest on the debt? 
We are borrowing that interest on the debt. Think of the significance 
of that. We are borrowing in excess of $213 billion to pay interest on 
our $4.5 trillion worth of debt.
  We are not addressing entitlement growth because we simply do not 
have the self-discipline to address it in a responsible manner, either 
through caps or freezing it at some level. So it continues to grow.
  But let us look at the merits of what we mean when we talk about 
borrowing somewhere in excess of $212 billion for interest. That does 
not increase inventory, it does not provide jobs, it does not provide 
any social programs. It does not provide any defense budget.
  If you went to your banker, Mr. President, and said, ``I need a loan 
because I have to make a payment,'' you might get the loan if you said 
you wanted to make the payment to pay a portion of your principal down. 
But if you asked him or her for a loan so you could pay your interest, 
you probably would not get it because you would be a very poor credit 
risk.
  That is the harsh reality of the condition of this Nation today. We 
are borrowing money to pay interest, and we are talking about the 
amendment of the Senator from Montana in the second degree cutting 
salaries. But we are continuing to expend more than we raise in 
revenue.
  There is a very simple process here, Mr. President. We have one or 
two alternatives: We either raise revenue or cut spending. The 
appropriate alternative, obviously, is to cut spending, but we do not 
have the discipline to do it.
  So I think as we address the merits of measures to cut spending, we 
should look at all measures and the amendment by the Senator from 
Montana relative to cutting salaries. At least he is cutting somewhere, 
and he is cutting pretty close to the heart when he proposes to cut 
Members' salaries 15 percent.
  We, as individual Senators, have to meet our obligations, but the 
Federal Government simply adds to the deficit for whatever else it 
needs. That is fiscal irresponsibility, Mr. President, and I think we 
should give more time and attention to the merits of it.
  There is a book out that some of my colleagues have read. It is 
``Bankruptcy 1995'' by a gentleman by the name of Figgie. He may be off 
a few years, but he is right on target with what is happening in the 
United States, what happened in Central and South America in monetizing 
the debt.
  We are approaching a time in the future, perhaps, but nevertheless it 
is inevitable, where a bigger portion of our budget goes for interest 
on the debt. That is like owning a horse that eats while you and I 
sleep. It goes on and on and on and on. Unless you address it by paying 
down the principal, it simply gets bigger. When you borrow to pay the 
interest solely, you are digging a grave for this country step by step.
  So, Mr. President, I think this body should look at all provisions 
that suggest control of costs and particularly the merits of expanded 
collective debt, as we look at it today, $4.5 trillion.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
of Senator Bumpers be allowed to be further modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, how is it 
being modified?
  Mr. BUMPERS. If I may explain this to the Senator from Texas, I have 
an amendment at the desk right now with a modification which covers the 
Senate rules only. In order to cover the House rules, too, which we 
must do, I would have to offer an amendment to that to amend the bill 
in two places, which as the Senator knows someone could object to, if 
we do not get a unanimous-consent request that I be permitted to amend 
the bill two places.
  Mr. GRAMM. The Senator wants to apply the same thing to the House?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Absolutely. That is all it does.
  Mr. GRAMM. No objection.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That saves us an additional vote also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1678, as Further Modified

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send the modification to the desk and 
withdraw the existing modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1678), as further modified, is as follows:

       The committee substitute is amended as follows:
       (1) On page 35, strike lines 7-19 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.''
       (2) Strike line 21 on page 48 through line 9 on page 49 of 
     the committee substitute and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:
     ``of Representatives, or the spouse thereof, shall knowingly 
     accept--
       ``(A) any gift provided directly or indirectly by a person 
     registered as a lobbyist or a foreign agent under the Federal 
     Regulation of Lobbying Act, the Foreign Agents Registration 
     Act, or any successor statute;
       ``(B) any gift from any other person.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:40 
p.m. the Senate vote on the Bumpers amendment as just modified; that 
following disposition of the Bumpers amendment, Senator Stevens, or his 
designee, be recognized to move to table the Murkowski amendment 
relating to PAC contributions; that if a motion to table is made, a 
vote occur on that motion to table; and that following disposition of 
that amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on the Murkowski amendment 
relating to reimbursement for travel to and lodging at charitable 
events; that if a motion to table the Murkowski amendment regarding PAC 
contributions is not made, the Senate then proceed immediately to vote 
on the Burns second-degree amendment to the Murkowski amendment, the 
Burns amendment relating to pay cuts; and that following the vote on 
the Burns amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on the Murkowski 
amendment regarding PAC contributions, as amended, if amended; and that 
following disposition of that amendment, the Senate then proceed to 
vote on the Murkowski amendment regarding reimbursement for travel to 
and lodging at charitable events.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
majority leader?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if the 
Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, should decide not to move to 
table, then the procedure the Senator outlined will follow. There would 
be a separate vote on the Burns amendment and followed by the vote on 
the Murkowski amendment?
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and the 
Senator from Alaska does not intend to object, but I would like 
reasonable time to talk on both my amendments following the process 
that the majority leader has drawn out. It would be a short time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
  Mr. President, my request would have the first vote occur at 9:40. So 
there would be time for debate between now and 9:40. I would suggest 
that it be equally divided between the Senator from Alaska and the 
manager of the bill, or his designee. Is that agreeable to Senator 
Murkowski?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska would like at least 10 
minutes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. He would have more than that.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. He has two amendments. I have not offered my second 
amendment. So I would like to have at least 10 minutes on my second 
amendment which I would offer after the vote on the Bumpers amendment 
and the disposition of the Burns-Murkowski amendment.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I have no disagreement with that.
  I yield to the Republican leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Why not proceed as the majority leader suggests and 
following disposition of the three amendments then the Senator would 
offer his second amendment?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes. And I would like to talk on the second amendment 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. Then we could debate it.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That could be equally divided.
  Mr. MITCHELL. The agreement I proposed contemplated voting on both of 
his amendments in succession.
  Mr. DOLE. I see.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I believe he wants 10 minutes between the vote on his 
first amendment and second amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The majority leader is correct.
  Mr. MITCHELL. In addition to the debate time between now and 9:30.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes. That would be on the pending amendment.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I inquire of the Senator, if the manager were willing 
to divide the time between now and 9:40 so the Senator from Alaska 
would have 18 minutes and the manager 5 minutes, would that be 
agreeable to the Senator? Then we could have the votes as suggested.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska would appreciate the majority 
leader accommodating him for at least 10 minutes prior to the vote on 
the second Murkowski amendment which would be the transportation issue.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Then, Mr. President, I modify my request to have a 
period of 15 minutes between the last vote on the second Murkowski 
amendment and the immediately preceding amendment with 10 minutes of 
that allocated to the Senator from Alaska and 5 minutes to the manager 
or his designee.
  Mr. LEVIN. It better be evenly divided. There are a number of 
speakers.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I am now advised others want to speak. We have 20 
minutes equally divided between the last vote and immediately preceding 
vote to accommodate the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request of 
the majority leader?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. After that time the bill is open to further amendment 
or final passage?
  Mr. MITCHELL. The bill is open to further amendment.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. So not necessarily final passage tonight.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, if I may respond to the Senator, we have 
been attempting to get a finite list with a time for finishing the 
bill.
  I have been advised by our colleagues that no such agreement is 
possible until these votes occur but that after these votes occur it 
may be possible to get that. That is why I am doing it that way.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I suggest that we call the Four Seasons 
restaurant and be sure that the Senators there with the Prime Minister 
from Malaysia will be through with the dessert and coffee by 9:30. We 
do not want to rush them because we have been sitting around here for 
several hours now to accommodate them in a few minutes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I will see to it that such a call is made.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. I probably shall not, but I would like to inquire of the 
leader and the minority leader, I assume the parliamentary situation is 
that the Burns amendment to reduce salaries by 15 percent is a second-
degree amendment to the Murkowski amendment, is that correct?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I believe that is correct.
  Mr. EXON. I am making an inquiry, I guess, as to the situation with 
regard to what can and cannot be done under the rules. I am considering 
an amendment, I must tell the leader and the minority leader, 
possibly--if it is possible to work this in before the vote on the 
Burns amendment--to offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that all of 
those voting for the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana 
should, regardless of the outcome of the vote, agree publicly tonight 
that, even if the vote fails, they would indeed cut their salary by 15 
percent.
  It seems to me that would be a totally reasonable proposition that we 
could offer.
  I have cosponsors to that, Mr. Leader.
  We are going through gyrations around here. It seems to me that, I 
will just advise the leader and the minority leader, if it is possible 
for me to offer such a sense-of-the-Senate resolution before the vote, 
the courageous vote to cut the salary by 15 percent, then I think it is 
time maybe that the U.S. Senate stand up.
  I will not use the word on the floor of the U.S. Senate that I would 
like to use in that regard, but I think many of these votes are put up 
strictly for political reasons. And I think maybe the best way to stop 
that would be to have a sense of the Senate, at least for those voting 
for the amendment to cut salaries by 15 percent by the Senator from 
Montana, to agree publicly, as they vote for that amendment, that they 
will cut their salaries by refunding that amount of money in some form 
for as long as they serve in the U.S. Senate. Maybe that would be one 
of these times when we could see how serious some of these amendments 
are.
  Possibly--I cannot do that right now; I will not object--but if the 
opportunity presents itself, I intend to offer such an amendment, 
hopefully, before the vote on the amendment being offered by the 
Senator from Montana.
  I do not object.
  I thank the leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the Senator should understand that if 
the request I proposed is approved, then a vote may occur on the Burns 
amendment prior to the time that he would be able to offer a sense of 
the Senate.
  I am grateful for his consideration. May I suggest to the Senator 
that the bill, after completion of these votes, will still be open to 
amendment, and he may then offer an amendment. It may not be as 
desirable as doing it before, but I think it would have the same 
effect.
  Mr. DOLE. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I yield to the Republican leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I think if you could extend that sense of the Senate to 
apply to those who voted earlier today on the gift ban--I mean, I 
cannot believe any politics was involved in that at all. Certainly that 
was all statesmanship, and the midnight pay cut is something else.
  But there may be a way to construct a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
we could all vote for, including the pay raise and the gift ban and all 
the shenanigans that have been going on all day here.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Kansas 
makes a very good point, although there is some difference between 
gifts. I intend to support the gift restraints, in all sincerity, as I 
have supported them for a long, long time. There is some kind of a 
difference. You can accept a gift and keep it a secret and not say 
anything about it. Not so with your salary in the U.S. Senate. If 
people want their salary cut, and if they so vote but it fails, then I 
think that they should voluntarily agree to make their tax return, or 
that portion of their tax return, public each and every year to 
indicate the seriousness of their convictions.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I renew my request.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  I would like to ask the majority leader, if the majority will indulge 
me for a moment, does the majority leader anticipate we will be in 
tomorrow with votes?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Unless we finish this bill tonight.
  Mr. DOLE. And we have Bosnia.
  Mr. MITCHELL. And we have the Bosnia matter.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Is the answer, more or less, that we are going to be 
in tomorrow, with votes? Is that what it appears to be now?
  Mr. DOLE. If the majority leader will yield, I assume there is going 
to a considerable amount of debate on Bosnia. I am not certain there 
will be a vote tomorrow.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. The reason I ask--it seems to me it is late --why do 
not we put these votes off until tomorrow morning?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I will respond to that. We have had a 
lengthy delay here for three reasons.
  First is that discussions were occurring regarding the substance of 
the bill in an effort to reach agreement on various provisions that 
would obviate the necessity of having votes to dispose of the matter. 
The second was, as the Senator has noted, to accommodate a group of 
Senators who left to have dinner with a foreign head of government who 
is in Washington at this time. And the third has been to try to resolve 
this issue of when we vote.
  It is not uncommon. It occurs all the time.
  There is a large number of Senators who want to finish the bill 
tonight and have no votes tomorrow. There is an equally large number of 
Senators who want to leave tonight--maybe a smaller number of Senators, 
but a number of them--who want to have no more votes tonight and put 
all the votes off until tomorrow morning.
  I am trying very hard to reconcile what are almost irreconcilable 
interests.
  Mr. President, I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the majority 
leader's modified unanimous-consent request is agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, Senators should be aware, and I hope all 
will be notified, that the votes tonight will begin at 9:40 p.m. on the 
Bumpers amendment, and there will be at least three votes, and possibly 
four, depending on what occurs during the votes.
  I thank my colleagues for their patience and cooperation.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm is 
recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Would the Senator yield for just one moment?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I neglected, in making my request, to 
ask consent that no second-degree amendments be in order to Senator 
Murkowski's amendment regarding reimbursement for travel to and lodging 
at charitable events. I now ask that my request be further modified to 
incorporate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the unanimous-consent, as further modified, is 
agreed to.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have remained silent all day during this 
debate in the hope that no one would remember that I was here. But I 
would just like to make a couple of comments about what we have been 
doing all day long.
  It seems to me that there are Members of the Senate who have 
concluded that the American people are unhappy with us. And indeed they 
are unhappy with us because we have raised their taxes, squandered 
their money, regulated their business, refused to provide quality 
services in education and law enforcement and, in short, they are just 
outraged that we are doing a bad job.
  Now, there seem to be some people who think that if we brutalize 
ourselves a little--first, by saying, well, if somebody gave you a 
Christmas tree and it was worth more than $20, you had to give it back.
  Now we have an amendment saying if the Christmas tree is worth a 
nickel, you cannot take it.
  My point is this: If you want to take a Christmas tree as a gift, 
take it. If you do not, do not. But I do not think the American people 
are going to be impressed, because it is not what we are doing to 
ourselves that they are mad about, it is what we are doing to them.
  I do not think they are going to feel better if we slap ourselves 
around a couple of times because we will still be slapping them around. 
What we ought to be doing is trying to undo the bad things we do to the 
people. But penalizing ourselves in this fashion simply makes us look 
silly. I am sure there are people who thought when we started this 
debate that somehow it was going to make us look good. I think, 
frankly, it has made the whole institution and every Member look silly.
  I hope there is a good baseball game on television tonight that 
somebody is watching. I hope my mama is not watching this process when 
we are debating silly, trivial things, so many that are unbecoming to 
the U.S. Senate, when there is so much real work to be done, when there 
are so many fundamental issues that ought to be decided and on which we 
should be concentrating.
  I do not know in the big picture if today's debate will make any 
difference, but so much of it seems to trivialize the greatest 
deliberative body in history. I just wanted to get up and say that I do 
not think the U.S. Senate has covered itself in glory today. I think it 
is too bad. Again, I do not think that in the process of conducting 
this silly debate that we are making people like us more. They want us 
to stop doing bad things to them and nothing we do to ourselves will 
change that.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I will only say, with respect to 
comments made by the Senator, that what is silly or trivial, is of 
course a subjective judgment that is in the eye of the beholder. I 
think what the Senator has said about silly and trivial things coming 
before the Senate is true as to many things other than what has 
occurred today. We spend a lot of time on things that I feel are silly 
and trivial and others feel are silly and trivial. I respect his point 
of view. Perhaps it will lead us to think about some of the other 
things we do in this Senate that many of us regard as silly and 
trivial.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. Murkowski].
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I want to make sure 
my colleagues understand the amendment before us. My amendment is to 
prohibit all political contributions from political action committees. 
I think it is important for the record to note that, since the passage 
of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the number of PAC's has grown 
from 680 in 1974 to 4,192 in 1992. Think of that growth when you look 
at the impact of political action committees as we reflect on the 
merits of reform legislation. PAC contributions increased from $12.5 
million to $180 million, which is an increase of more than 400 percent 
in real terms. In 1992, 55 percent of the House winners received more 
than half their contributions from PAC's.
  The situation is worse than is reflected by these numbers, because 
almost all corporate and trade PAC money, 90 percent, went to 
incumbents. Almost all won reelection.
  So I encourage my colleagues to reflect a little bit on how the 
American public is going to view this vote. Are they going to view it 
as business as usual where there is an effort to vote down or table my 
amendment to prohibit political action committee contributions coming 
in? This legislation would prohibit a Senator specifically from 
accepting any gift, directly or indirectly, from a political action 
committee. Banning PAC contributions was really a key part in the 
Republican campaign reform bill. I simply extend that concept to ban 
contributions from lobbyists as well.
  I might add, this proposed amendment would apply to both the House 
and Senate. Campaign reform legislation is now in conference. We hear 
it will be brought to the floor but oftentimes these things get bogged 
down in conference. My amendment provides Senators the chance to block 
this special influence of the PAC's, as well as the lobbyist. It is 
basically 2 for 1. We get an opportunity with this vote to ban both the 
PAC's and the lobbyist. Perhaps it is poetic justice that Members who 
insist on banning all gifts, all gifts from lobbyists, many of whom are 
facing reelection in the near future, but are against extending it to 
political action committees.
  Mr. President, I think we have before us an opportunity to address 
this forthrightly, recognizing that the American public feels there is 
too much influence from PAC's and this is a way to address that 
influence as we look at the vote we are about to initiate from the 
Senator from Arkansas, which would prohibit all gifts. That is the 
question before us. Following that will be my amendment to prohibit all 
political action committee contribution, contribution from political 
action committees.
  I have not heard any of my colleagues speak against the amendment 
proposed by the Senator from Alaska, which I find rather interesting. 
It will be equally interesting to see the vote count on this amendment 
when the time is up.
  I have no further comments at this time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Alaska is 
an amendment which I personally support. I do think the fact that PAC 
contributions are made and are easily connected--and I think wrongly 
connected--but nonetheless easily connected to people's votes in the 
media has undermined confidence in this Government. When people read 
that someone gets a $5,000 contribution from a PAC and then votes in a 
way which that PAC supports, people jump to a conclusion that there is 
a connection between the two. That creates a problem in terms of public 
confidence and public credibility. I think we have to correct it by 
eliminating those PAC contributions. So I support the Murkowski 
amendment. I think he is right in terms of trying to raise the level of 
public confidence in this country.
  The same thing is true with gifts from lobbyists. It is a serious 
issue, because most people think the lobbyists control the Federal 
Government. In the most recent public opinion poll--when a scientific 
cross-section of Americans was asked ``Which of the following do you 
think really controls the Federal Government in Washington?''--7 
percent say the President; 22 percent say the Congress; 50 percent say 
the lobbyists and the special interests, 50 percent.
  We have to do whatever we reasonably can to inspire public confidence 
in Government. One of the ways we can do it is to control the gifts of 
meals, of tickets, of travel by lobbyists. That is what this gifts bill 
is all about. That is why it is serious business. It is serious 
business because it involves the public confidence. And in a democracy 
you better have public confidence because if you do not, your democracy 
is going to be a lot weaker.
  That is what the gifts bill is about--trying to promote public 
confidence in Government by controlling what the public knows happens 
around here, which are tickets coming from lobbyists, meals paid for by 
lobbyists, travel paid by lobbyists. That is what we are trying to end 
in this gifts bill. It is serious business. It is not trivial business. 
It is not a waste of this Senate's time to be debating this today--
quite the opposite. If we can control some of the gifts which have 
created this impression in the public mind that this Government is run 
by lobbyists, we will be making a significant contribution, I believe, 
to this great democracy of ours. So let us get on with it.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Wallop is recognized.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I had thought when I announced that I was 
not going to run for reelection, that it would be a sad moment for me. 
Mr. President, I have decided that it was perhaps the wisest decision 
of my political career.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. 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.


                vote on amendment no. 1678, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 9:40 having arrived, under the 
previous order, the question now is on agreeing to amendment No. 1678, 
as modified, offered by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent 
because of illness.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], 
the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], and the Senator 
from Oregon [Mr. Packwood] are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--3

     Gramm
     Levin
     Metzenbaum

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bond
     Cohen
     Durenberger
     Kassebaum
     Packwood
     Pryor
     Shelby
  So the amendment (No. 1678), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The question now occurs on 
amendment 1680 offered by the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns].
  Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Montana. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent 
because of illness.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], 
the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], and the Senator 
from Oregon [Mr. Packwood] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Stevens

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bond
     Cohen
     Durenberger
     Kassebaum
     Packwood
     Pryor
     Shelby
  So the amendment (No. 1680) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment 1679 
offered by the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski].
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I would like to very briefly explain 
the intent of the amendment. The amendment offered by myself prohibits 
the Senate--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will note to the Senator that debate 
is not in order.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that I may express the intent 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Alaska be recognized for 30 seconds to explain the intent 
of his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays and will 
make a brief explanation.
  The amendment would prohibit the Senator from accepting any gift 
directly or indirectly from a political action committee.
  We are talking about trying to ban gifts here. My amendment merely 
adds this prohibition to include what some would consider a very 
important type of gift, a political contribution from a PAC.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                       vote on amendment no. 1679

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Alaska. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent 
because of illness.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], and the Senator 
from Oregon [Mr. Packwood] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 29, as follows:

                      {Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.

                                YEAS--66

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--29

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boren
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Riegle
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Sasser

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Durenberger
     Kassebaum
     Packwood
     Pryor
     Shelby
  So the amendment (No. 1679) was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alaska is recognized to offer an amendment.
  The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 1681

  (Purpose: To permit reimbursement for travel and lodging at charity 
                                events)

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

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1681.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam 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:

       On page 43, line 22, strike ``not''.
       On page 57, line 11, strike ``not''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 20 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, the amendment I presented would 
strike from the committee substitute the provision which prohibits 
Members of Congress from receiving private reimbursement for travel, 
food and lodging in connection with a charitable event.
  Under this amendment such reimbursements would be permitted so long 
as the reimbursement was not made by a registered lobbyist or foreign 
agent. We have seen charitable events such as Senator Garn's Ski Cup, 
which goes for the Children's Hospital in Salt Lake City. It would be 
prohibited for Members supporting that event as a consequence of the 
underlying amendment.
  In my State of Alaska, were we to attempt to have a charity event, we 
would be prohibited because transportation is not provided. The 
injustice of this is that under the committee substitute large 
charitable organizations that have the resources to have their 
fundraisers in Washington, DC will be able to invite Members of 
Congress to their events because, under the committee amendment, the 
underlying amendment, a Member of Congress may accept--and this is the 
injustice--a Member of Congress may accept an offer to attend such an 
event, even if the event is a $1000 a plate dinner to raise funds for 
whatever purpose. But we who are out in the west, out far away, simply 
are excluded from that opportunity.
  My amendment would allow reimbursement for lodging and transportation 
in connection with charitable events only.
  Madam President, these events do not benefit Senators, as do 
political fundraisers and legal defense funds. I would like to point 
out that we have protected ourselves on political fundraisers, and the 
American public is going to question our wisdom, to say the least. We 
have done the same with regard to our legal defense funds, as well as 
political fundraisers.
  One would ask and the American people will ask each of us why we have 
a double standard: One for political events where travel and lodging 
can be reimbursed and another standard for charitable events where 
expenses simply cannot be reimbursed.
  Madam President, the inequity is obvious. I would like to refer 
specifically to our rules under Interpretive Ruling No. 193. The 
question is: May a Senator accept travel expenses from an official of a 
district's political party organization in return for his or her 
appearance at a rally sponsored by that organization?
  Rule 35 excepts from the definition of ``gifts, anything of value, 
including transportation for which consideration of equal or greater 
value is received. Travel incident to a political appearance would 
appear to meet this consideration.''
  So there we have it, Madam President. I ask the manager of the 
underlying amendment if I understand that under the provisions of the 
underlying bill in the Senate rules, any Senator can attend a political 
fundraiser and accept reimbursement for travel and lodging expenses? I 
ask that of the floor manager. Perhaps the floor manager was in 
conversation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Perhaps the chairman of the Rules Committee could respond 
relative to existing rules, but for whom is the reimbursement you are 
referring to in your question?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am referring to Interpretive Ruling 193 and the 
reimbursements would be to a fellow Senator.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think you have to check with the Ethics Committee.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I just read the ruling and, indeed, it is 
reimbursable. The example specifically is if a Senator could attend a 
fundraiser for, say, the California Democratic Committee in Los 
Angeles, including a movie preview and an expensive dinner surrounded 
by lobbyists, and have his or her hotel and travel and all other 
expenses paid for by the California Democratic Committee. The answer, 
of course, under the rules, is absolutely yes, we are not prohibiting 
ourselves from that through this revolution of so-called gift 
legislation.
  But the same Senator could not have his or her expenses reimbursed 
for participation in a fundraising event for a charitable organization 
that was raising money for, say, cancer detection for poor people. 
There is the inconsistency, and that is the justification for my 
amendment.
  The American people are going to see through this if, indeed, we do 
not support and recognize that we have a legitimate contribution to 
make to charities in this country and it can be made in an honorable 
manner in spite of the opinion of some who have criticized some of the 
charities and particularly that of Senator Garn's ski cup where they 
have participated for an extended period of time. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I can have 3 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I have not had a chance to see this 
amendment, and I cannot speak to the interpretation to which the 
Senator from Alaska spoke, but I do think this goes to the heart of 
Senator Levin's amendment and what we debated in the earlier part of 
the day.
  Clearly, Senators should be able to contribute to charities. We can 
do that. We can travel to gatherings on our own resources, and we can 
do all that. That is not really the issue. If the Senator will let me 
finish, that is not really the issue. The issue is what, in fact, has 
all too often been something that just does not seem at all credible, 
which is that we go to charities but it is at those gatherings--whether 
it is golf, tennis, recreation, plus whatever else we do--they may not 
be paid by lobbyists, but it is paid by the lobbyists' clients.
  That is what the Senator is talking about. To the extent you have 
some other party that is paying your expenses, then we run right smack 
back into the very problem to which I think this reform is trying to 
speak. I think this really goes very much against the Governmental 
Affairs Committee amendment. I think it is a huge mistake. I think it 
becomes a huge loophole.
  It is the very thing, quite frankly, if we are going to talk about 
perceptions--and that is what we have been talking about throughout the 
day--that has really gotten us into a lot of trouble. There is no 
reason why we need to have clients of lobbyists or other people paying 
for this. There is no reason we cannot do this on our own. I think it 
is a huge mistake.
  So I think the Senator's amendment really does very much undercut 
what Senator Levin had been proposing and what I think we have been 
supporting. I will let the Senator from Michigan expand on the remarks.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I intend to yield time to my friend, 
the senior Senator from Alaska. The fact is, I will respond to the 
Senator from Minnesota. Under the provision of the underlying bill and 
the Senate's rules, any Senator can attend a political fundraiser and 
accept reimbursement for travel and lodging expenses, but he cannot do 
it for a charitable event. That is what is wrong with it.
  I yield some time to my friend, the senior Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I think Senator Murkowski has a point. 
I believe every Senator here has attended political fundraising events 
that have included the same kind of entertainment that has been 
criticized so harshly. Whether it is to go to a movie in Los Angeles or 
go to a golf event in Florida, if it is for political purposes, a 
Senator may go and have the amount completely reimbursed by the 
candidate's political action committee or the party that is raising 
money for another Senator or for any other candidate, and it is deemed 
to be acceptable. But if we have the same kind of event in Alaska, as 
Senator Murkowski has arranged this year, to raise money for a new 
breast cancer device for our State, that is not allowed.
  I do not believe that that duplicity should be carried forward in 
this bill, and I support Senator Murkowski's concept that if it is 
legal to have such allowance for travel for hotel bills, for expenses 
and for entertainment for political purposes, it is just as legal to do 
that for charitable purposes.
  I challenge any one of you. You all have participated in it. Why 
suddenly say, OK, right here in Washington, it is all right here in 
Washington, but it is not all right when you have to travel to the West 
to do it?
  Any one of you know what it costs to travel to our State. These 
people are willing to participate and support the charities of our 
State, just as they are yours here. Why should we not have the same 
considerations that you have here?
  I do believe this amendment is a valid one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam President, the rule which the Senator from Alaska is referring 
to is existing law and existing interpretation which is not touched by 
this bill. The reimbursement which he is referring to, as I understand 
it, in his amendment is not reimbursement which is permitted under this 
bill. It is an interpretive ruling, No. 189, of existing rules and 
laws.
  If the Senator from Alaska thinks that that should be changed so that 
people cannot be reimbursed from their own campaign funds to go to a 
political function, then the Senator from Alaska should offer an 
amendment to tighten that restriction.
  But to throw out the key provision of this committee substitute, 
which is to end the kind of so-called charitable, but very significant, 
recreational trips which are taken by Members of Congress and paid for 
by the interests in this country that want to hobnob with Members of 
Congress at those events, would be a total reversal of what we did this 
morning.
  The Johnston amendment permitted this kind of recreational travel to 
a so-called charitable event. Our committee substitute does not do it.
  If you want to know what the issue really is--I have these at the 
desk; we do not have the time to debate it--read the transcripts of the 
TV shows that describe these events. Each of us has to decide in our 
own conscience whether or not we believe credibility is contributed to 
with these kinds of events. That is a decision for each of us. We made 
that decision, I thought, this morning with a very clear vote on the 
Johnston substitute to the committee amendment.
  That is what the issue is here with the Senator from Alaska. Do we 
wish to provide for this kind of recreational travel to a so-called 
charitable event. This morning we said no. And I think we based that to 
a significant degree on what we see happening at those events as 
portrayed in the national media.
  If we are comfortable with it, if we are not embarrassed by it, if we 
think it contributes to the credibility of this institution to have 
these events, then I presume people will vote that way. I do not. I 
have seen these events on the TV shows. I think we undermine public 
confidence when there is that kind of recreational travel to a so-
called charitable event which typically--typically--will have half the 
money going to pay for the room and travel of Members that are going, 
and the other half roughly--and this is just a rough estimate--going to 
the charity.
  I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, could I inquire how much time is 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The floor has been yielded. The Senator from 
Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I ask how much time we have on this side, Madam 
President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 26 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I ask my colleagues to recognize what we are doing. We are setting 
two standards here. We are setting a standard for our political 
activity and another standard for our charitable activity. Who are we 
trying to kid? The group that hobnobs at a charity event is not that 
the same group that is going to hobnob at a political event, the 
lobbyists and the PAC's. Let us not kid ourselves. A charity event is 
just that. The proceeds go for charity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. A political event is a political event, but you have 
people wearing the same hats at both.
  I yield my friend from Utah 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I wish to say as the Senator from a State 
where one of these events has gone on, that prior to the time the 
Senators started coming to Utah for the ski event, the Primary 
Children's Hospital was unable to raise the sums that have been raised 
since then. There is no question but that crippled children have 
benefited tremendously by the Senators coming there.
  Second, I have seen the television and I have attended the event, and 
I find no correlation of truth between the television view and what 
actually went on.
  I think the time has come for the Senate to stand up and be serious 
about this. Charitable events are, indeed, charitable. And if we let 
our lives be run by the scandals that are run on television, we will 
all be forced to retire at some point or other.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if no other Senator wishes to speak--I 
yield 1 minute to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska yields to the Senator 
from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I was one who also, Mr. President, attended the events 
in Utah. I have never been so moved as when I saw Jason this last time, 
who came to us limping and on crutches and thanked us for making his 
life to be a little bit brighter because of the efforts that went on at 
that event. I think we were all moved to tears. And to think that I no 
longer can go there because of the scandal sheet, and the TV portrayed 
something which never happened to me--I never was lobbied once in all 
the time I was there, never once by any lobbyist--and yet it was a 
beautiful event, a beautiful expression of kindness and thanks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan controls the 
remaining time, 4 minutes 48 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I think this debate has pointed out the 
difficulty we are all trying to come to grips with. We are looking for 
symmetry between what we can do as candidates and what we can do as 
Senators.
  But there is no symmetry. The Senate has gone on record in favor of 
the Bumpers amendment to reduce the value of a gift that can be given 
down to zero. If you follow the logic and apply it to campaigns, then 
you eliminate all contributions to campaigns other than through public 
financing. We have yet to take that step, and there are very few who 
are willing to take that step.
  Bumpers says no gift of any kind. Yet, contributors, lobbyists, 
PAC's, and CEO's can all contribute substantial amounts to our campaign 
funds. So we have a great disconnect. We are not going to resolve that 
issue here tonight by saying we should have one rule for campaigns, but 
another for gifts and charitable events. I agree with Senator Levin; 
this amendment would in fact amount to a reversal of what we did this 
morning, and I would argue we ought not to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey, 2 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
  I, too, attended for a few years the ski cup in Utah, had a very good 
time, and was convinced that the Primary Children's Hospital was a 
wonderful place. And the last time I went I brought a check from me, 
personally, to the hospital because I thought it was so good.
  But when you do the accounting and you look at what is spent on 
travel and entertainment and lodging and ski lifts and ski instructors, 
and you count the net, I think that we could do just as well for the 
Primary Children's Hospital if we all said to the companies that 
sponsored it, give it direct and we will salute you out here in front 
of the Capitol. Give the money direct and forget about all of the other 
stuff, the entertainment. It was fun while it lasted, but its time has 
passed, Mr. President.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield for a question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. On whose time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. On the Senator's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has no time to yield.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I had 1 minute. Is my minute used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator had 2 minutes. He has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I had 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining of the 2 
minutes that were yielded the Senator by the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would ask my good friend from New Jersey, since he 
obviously is an expert and has attended the Jake Garn ski event on many 
occasions, why it took him so long to find out it was not a worthwhile 
event?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I never said it was not a worthwhile event. I said 
that things have changed.
  The Senator asked me for an answer. I am going to give it to him. 
Things change. People expect different things from us. We used to have 
free gyms, we used to have free doctors, we used to have free this and 
free that. Why did we vote to change them? Because the public expects 
more of their public servants than to be out on a ski trip or a golf 
trip or a tennis trip.
  What they expect is that if we are going to do our business, it is 
going to be done primarily here. And when we go some place like that, I 
submit to you, pay for it and go and show how serious you are about the 
Primary Children's Hospital.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. If I have any time, I yield it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan yields back the 
remaining time.
  Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent 
because of illness.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], and the Senator 
from Oregon [Mr. Packwood] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Bennett
     Bond
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nunn
     Pell
     Rockefeller
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Specter
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Durenberger
     Kassebaum
     Packwood
     Pryor
     Shelby
  So the amendment (No. 1681) was rejected.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the bill 
reported by the Government Affairs Committee would prohibit 
contributions by registered lobbyists to an entity that is maintained 
or controlled by that Member. Is this correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. As my colleagues know, I am currently chairman of the Dole 
Foundation, a tax-exempt non-profit organization established to expand 
employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. Assuming that I 
maintain or control the Dole Foundation, the committee-passed bill 
would prohibit registered lobbyists from offering monetary 
contributions or other items of value to the Dole Foundation. Is this 
correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes, it is correct. The committee-passed bill prohibits 
contributions by registered lobbyists to foundations or charities 
maintained or controlled by a Member, officer, or employee of the 
Senate.
  This prohibition, however, does not apply to contributions to a 
foundation or charity by anyone other than a registered lobbyist. The 
prohibition applies only to contributions by registered lobbyists.
  Under S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act, a registered lobbyist is 
``an individual who is employed or retained by another for financial or 
other compensation to perform services that include lobbying 
contacts.'' The term ``registered lobbyist'' does not cover ``an 
individual whose lobbying activities are incidental to, and are not a 
significant part of, the services provided by such individual to the 
client.''
  In the committee report on S. 349, we interpret this level of 
activity to mean more than 10 percent of a person's working time. This 
definition is obviously not intended to cover the overwhelming majority 
of corporate chief executive officers, other corporate officers, or 
members of corporate boards. For example, a CEO who visits Washington, 
DC, four times a year to talk to Members and staff, or a person who 
serves on a board of directors who infrequently calls a Member on 
behalf of the company for whom he serves, or an officer or employee of 
a company who engages in lobbying activities in a manner incidental to 
his normal duties, would not be considered a lobbyist.
  Mr. DOLE. In other words, if the committee-passed bill became law, it 
would still be permissible for me to request contributions on behalf of 
the Dole Foundation from most corporate executives, and it would also 
be permissible for these executives to make contributions to charitable 
foundations like the Dole Foundation.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his 
comments.


                           amendment no. 1674

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in recent years, many Americans have 
expressed dissatisfaction with Congress. It seems that every other day 
there is an opinion poll in which Members of Congress are ranked at the 
bottom of the list of trusted professions.
  I am concerned about the way in which Americans will view this 
debate. It seems to me that we are almost promoting the perception that 
every Member of Congress is being corrupted by lobbyists. Certainly, 
that is not an accurate reflection of reality. We must restore the 
public's confidence in Congress, but we need to find careful solutions 
that do not create more problems than they solve.
  During my years in the Senate, I have fought to reform the political 
system. In 1988, I introduced a bill to ban honoraria--the speaking 
fees that Members of Congress were receiving from special interest 
groups. That measure was eventually enacted into law and now those fees 
go to charities. That measure was a step toward ensuring that Members 
of Congress are responsive only to those paying their salaries--the 
taxpayers.
  Senator Levin deserves commendation for his more recent efforts to 
craft gift reform legislation. However, I am concerned that his gift 
ban bill may actually create more uncertainty as Members of Congress 
try to determine what is permissible.
  Some of my colleagues have already discussed the problems with the 
lack of clear definitions in the bill. If the bill is not modified, 
Members would have to determine who is a ``friend,'' what constitutes a 
``widely-attended'' event, and what types of activities are 
``substantially recreational.'' Consideration of these issues could be 
humorous, except that someone's reputation would be at stake. The 
ambiguity of such provisions could also create a large bureaucracy at 
the Ethics Committee, as additional staff spends hours attempting to 
apply these rules.
  The Levin bill would also limit the time and energy that Members of 
Congress and their staff could devote to fund-raising for charities. 
Instead of suggesting that such activities are somehow inappropriate, 
we ought to
  In my view, Senators Johnston and McConnell have crafted a more 
practical alternative. Their amendment would change current law to 
limit the types of gifts Members and staff could accept. It would also 
require disclosure of any gifts over $75 and any privately funded 
trips. With better disclosure requirements in place, the public can 
judge for itself whether Members are being faithful to the electorate. 
Finally, the amendment contains a severe penalty--expulsion--for any 
violations.
  In the long run, the best way to reform the political process is 
through campaign finance reform. The problem is not that a Member of 
Congress receives an occasional gift from a constituent, or takes a 
trip to a foreign country to help expand economic opportunities for 
American businesses. The problem is that candidates must spend too much 
time trying to raise the ridiculously large sums of money that it takes 
to run a campaign. Although practical limitations on the activities of 
professional lobbyists are important, we must also move comprehensive 
campaign finance reform through this Congress.
  Mr. SIMPSON. We earlier passed a managers amendment which banned the 
current practice that allowed registered lobbyists to write checks to 
charities designated by Senators who have delivered a speech for an 
honorarium. This prohibition, however, is limited only to lobbyists and 
registered foreign agents. Honoraria speeches can still be made under 
this bill. Appropriate charities can still be designated by the Senator 
making the speech. The major change in the law is that the payments 
must not be written or tendered by lobbyists or foreign agents. Of 
course, 100 percent of any honoraria must go to the charity. I wish to 
direct this inquiry to the author of the bill, Senator Levin. On 
February 13, 1992, Senator Kennedy and I received a ruling from the 
Senate Ethics Committee in regard to our participation in a series of 
broadcasts known as Face Off on the Mutual Broadcast System. As a 
result of our participation on Face Off, we are able to direct $25,000 
per year to various charitable causes. We are, of course, prohibited 
from personally keeping one cent of that money. The checks to the 
selected charities are received from the broadcast group which produces 
``Face Off.'' The broadcast group is neither a foreign agent or a 
registered lobbyist. Would the bill, as amended, in the view of the 
Senator from Michigan, have any adverse effect on this arrangement?
  Mr. LEVIN. If the broadcast group is neither a registered lobbyist 
nor a foreign agent, it is my opinion that this bill would not in any 
way change, alter or amend the earlier Ethics Committee ruling on that 
subject.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, in the year 1992 our Senate colleagues 
directed over $500,000 to go to charities as a result of speeches which 
they made. By current law, not one cent of those funds went into any 
Member's pockets. In 1991, the amount was over $762,000. These funds go 
to organizations such as the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, the American 
Cancer Society, universities, community colleges, environmental and 
Conservation causes, scholarship programs, veterans groups, and many 
other worthwhile charitable and educational institutions. I believe 
this kind of work which Senators do to benefit charities is most 
commendable. This bill would have banned that type of activity 
entirely. I was prepared to offer an amendment which would have 
continued current law regarding charitable honoraria. Since my 
amendment became known to my old friend, Senator Carl Levin, the author 
of the legislation, he and I and our respective staff members have 
engaged in fruitful negotiations. I think we have achieved a solution 
which will allow these types of worthwhile organizations to continue to 
receive proceeds from honoraria. However, since this bill is mostly 
about appearances, and the perceived influence of registered lobbyists, 
we have agreed to modifications of the current system. I commend 
Senator Levin and his staff for their work in helping to draft this 
resolution.
  As I understand it, provisions in the managers' amendment would 
prohibit charitable contributions in lieu of honoraria if those 
contributions are made directly by a lobbyist or a registered foreign 
agency is that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. SIMPSON. However, I understand that nothing in the managers' 
amendment which includes the provisions I requested would prohibit a 
Member from entering into an agreement to make a speech, and then to 
direct that an honorarium for the speech go to appropriate charities so 
long as the person who writes the check to the charity is not a 
registered lobbyist or registered foreign agent. Is that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct. It is not our intention to prohibit 
Senators from directing honoraria proceeds to worthy charities. 
However, we do not want the perception to be that lobbyists are seeking 
to influence a Senator by contributing to his or her favorite charity. 
The entire focus of this bill is to avoid that sort of perception. 
Accordingly, the prohibition extends only to lobbyists or foreign 
agents.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I very much appreciate the outstanding cooperation I 
have received from my fine friends, Senator Levin and Senator Cohen, in 
arriving at a satisfactory solution to this matter.


                           amendment no. 1682

  Mr. EXON. 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for himself, Mr. 
     DeConcini, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Bradley, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1682.

  Mr. MITCHELL. 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:

       At the appropriate place add the following:
       It is sense of the Senate that any Member who voted May 5, 
     1994, to amend S. 1935 to reduce the pay of Members of the 
     Senate by 15%, should return to the U.S. Treasury the full 
     amount of any pay that would not have been received had the 
     amendment been enacted into law and that such Members should 
     provide evidence to the public on an annual basis that they 
     have done so.

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


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, we have had several discussions 
involving a large number of Senators in an effort to devise a procedure 
to complete action on this bill and to take up other matters. The 
Republican leader and I have reached agreement which has not been 
reduced to writing and, therefore, I am not prepared to formally 
present it as a unanimous consent request.
  But, in view of the hour, so as not to inconvenience Senators, what I 
will do now is describe the terms of the agreement and, if agreeable to 
Senators, then to state that there will be no further votes and 
Senators could leave and we will remain and put this into the formal 
language necessary for an agreement.
  The agreement contemplates the following actions, which involve the 
time between now and next Wednesday.
  With respect to the pending bill, there would be only five amendments 
remaining in order: The managers' package of amendments; an amendment 
by Senator Murkowski, which will require that reimbursement for 
political travel be treated in a form identical to reimbursement for 
travel to charitable events. And these amendments will be taken up, 
when we do take them up, as I subsequently describe in the order 
stated.
  Then an amendment by Senator D'Amato, regarding the use of racial 
justice statistics in the application of the death penalty. Then an 
amendment by Senator Exon, which would require that any Senator who 
voted for the reduction in pay earlier today be required to accept a 
lower rate of pay, even if the amendment offered earlier does not 
become law. Then an amendment by Senator Dole, requiring that any 
Member of the Senate who has previously voted against an increase in 
pay which became law and then accepted the increase be required to 
refund that amount.
  Those will be the only amendments in order to the pending bill and 
there will be no second-degree amendments or motions to recommit in 
order. Those will be the only amendments in order to the bill and they 
will have to be offered and debated tomorrow in order to be in order.
  Upon the completion of that debate, the Senate will take up tomorrow 
the environmental technology bill. Any amendments to be offered to that 
bill will have to be offered tomorrow to be in order.
  Following that, the Senate will then proceed to the Bosnia 
legislation for debate only.
  The votes that are required on either the pending bill or the 
environmental technology bill will not occur tomorrow but will be 
stacked to occur beginning next Wednesday afternoon.
  So that there will be no votes tomorrow but there will be debate and 
amendments offered on the pending bill limited to the 5 amendments I 
have just described, all first-degree, no second-degree amendments or 
motions to recommit in order. And the votes on the environmental 
technology bill as necessary will also be stacked to occur beginning on 
Wednesday afternoon.
  The Bosnia matter will be before the Senate. That will be for debate 
only and no votes will be stacked with respect to that as of tomorrow.
  On Monday, the Senate will proceed to consideration of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act for debate only, and the offering of amendments. If 
any amendments are offered and votes will be required, they will be 
stacked to occur on Wednesday afternoon. On Tuesday, the Senate will 
resume on the Bosnia resolution and it is expected that debate will 
take up all or much of that day.
  On Wednesday morning it would be my intention to proceed to the 
Budget Resolution Conference Report. Any votes that are required with 
respect to Bosnia will occur not earlier than Wednesday afternoon, if 
debate has been completed by that time. But this does not require the 
completion of that debate by that time. And the same is true with 
respect to the budget resolution.
  So there would be no votes until next Wednesday afternoon. In the 
meantime we would complete action on all amendments relating to the 
pending bill and final passage, of course, would occur also. The same 
is true with respect to the environmental technology bill. We will have 
begun debate on Bosnia, perhaps completed it; begun debate on the Safe 
Drinking Water Act; and also have begun, and hopefully completed, 
debate on the Budget Resolution Conference Report.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand this has not been formally 
propounded yet, but I rise on behalf of half a dozen Senators who have 
spoken to me relative to the potential racial justice amendment. If it 
is put in, and if there is no ability to amend that or second degree 
that amendment, I would have to object to any unanimous consent 
agreement.
  I am delighted to vote on racial justice if that is what my friend 
from New York wishes to do. I have not seen it. I do not know what it 
is going to be and it is a very important matter. I am unwilling, 
though, in the blind--and I do not think in 22 years I have ever 
objected to a unanimous consent agreement, but I would be unwilling 
to--I would be forced to object unless I could reserve a place. I have 
no second degree necessarily. I do not know. But I would like to 
reserve a place for the possibility of a second-degree amendment on the 
amendment of the Senator from New York on racial justice. If he would 
not object to that I have no objection to proceeding on voting on that 
issue. But I would like to reserve that right.
  Again, I speak not only for myself, but a number of my colleagues 
have come to me to ask me to protect them in this regard if that is to 
occur.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I inquire of the Senator from New York whether that is 
agreeable to him?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I do not wish to obstruct the proceedings 
either. But I do believe it is a very straightforward amendment. I 
would be willing to share it. Possibly if the Senator has any 
objections at that point we could discuss it. It is very simple. It 
simply says,

       It is the sense of the Senate that the upcoming Senate-
     House conference on omnibus crime legislation should reject 
     the Racial Justice Act provisions contained in title IX of 
     the crime bill passed by the House of Representatives on 
     April 21, 1994.

  I do not know how you could provide for a second-degree, in all due 
candor. It is a pretty straight issue. Really an up-or-down vote on it 
would be appropriate. If my colleague would like to provide--and I 
might suggest to the leaders, it would seem to me we might want to save 
some additional time Wednesday, for example--maybe a half-hour or 20 
minutes to be debated on Wednesday as well or whatever time one might 
feel appropriate, I certainly would not object to that.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I appreciate the comments of my friend from New York. I 
suggest there are several ways that have been discussed about amending 
the amendment of the Senator from New York. For example, there are 
those who have suggested that it be amended in such a way as to suggest 
the Racial Justice Act, as contained in the House crime bill, be 
modified to apply only to Federal--only apply federally. There are 
those who suggested that there be instructions to vote to amend it for 
purposes of deleting additional provisions in the House bill. So there 
are a number of ways it can be amended.
  I have not made any such judgment to amend it. But I know, whether it 
is Senator Kennedy or Senator Moseley-Braun or a half a dozen other of 
my colleagues, since this, as they say, happens on my watch, I am not 
prepared to agree to a unanimous consent agreement that does not give 
me or anyone else the right to come with a second-degree amendment.
  It is not the time. I am willing to limit the debate. I cannot speak 
for everyone, but for me, I am willing to limit the debate on a second-
degree amendment as well as the underlying amendment to a relatively 
short amount of time. I am not looking for hours. I would look for 
minutes--40 minutes or 60 minutes divided.
  But I am not willing to agree to a UC if that does not allow me to 
have the right to attempt to amend the amendment of the Senator from 
New York. This issue, as we all know--we have debated it many times on 
the floor--is incredibly contentious. But it is also incredibly 
important. The Senator from New York feels very strongly about it but 
the Senator from Delaware feels equally strongly the opposite way.
  So I do not want, in the spirit of getting us out tonight--and I can 
think of no better reason to leave tonight than what happened today--
but I think everyone would be anxious to end this session and end the 
misery. But I, for one, am not prepared to agree to an UC that does not 
give me the opportunity, if I choose to, to amend in the second degree 
the racial justice amendment of the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. If I might suggest a possible way to deal with this? I 
just make this in the spirit of a suggestion to accommodate all.
  Would the Senator from Delaware's opportunity to put forth his views 
on this be protected if he were to reserve a place to offer an 
amendment after my amendment, so we could each have a vote, up or down? 
We could have a vote on this and then if he chooses to go forward with 
another amendment dealing with this area, then so be it. And he would 
have the same right, subject to no second-degree amendment, so the 
Senate could vote. It might vote inconsistently on one or the other but 
the Members would then have a right to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. That would satisfy an apparent sense of equity but it may 
put me at a disadvantage in terms of being able to defeat the Senator's 
amendment, and on this matter I feel very, very strongly about this 
racial justice provision and I do not wish to yield any rights I have 
on the floor that could enhance the possibility of my being able to. I 
realize the Senator has had the votes in the past. I am not one to tilt 
at windmills. That is why I am willing to limit the time.
  I realize the last time we had a vote on this the Senator from New 
York, his position, won roughly 70 to 30. But I would like to have the 
opportunity to use the rules of the Senate in terms of amendment to be 
able to make it more difficult for the Senator to win.
  As the Senator knows, we have always had a great relationship. I have 
never had anything but respect for him. I will do everything in my 
power at this moment under the rules to make it difficult for the 
Senator to win, or at least to decrease his margin. So I will not agree 
to a UC unless I have the opportunity, if we choose, to second degree 
the amendment.
  I apologize to the majority leader. I know how hard he and the 
Republican leader worked on this. As I said, I do not think in 22 years 
I have ever done this but this is too important to me.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I respect my colleague's decision.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Mathews]. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. 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. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I am going to renew the request, or make 
the request in the form that I described earlier with the following 
modifications, and they all relate to the pending bill and the 
amendments to be offered to the pending bill.
  First, the order of the amendments will be changed so they will be in 
the following order tomorrow morning: The first amendment by Senator 
Exon, the subject matter as I have previously described; the second by 
Senator Dole, again as previously described; the third amendment by 
Senator D'Amato, the subject matter as previously described; and the 
fourth amendment by Senator Murkowski, the subject matter as previously 
described.
  In addition, there will be a managers' package of amendments to be 
offered at the discretion of the managers. The amendments by Senator 
Exon and Dole will be in the nature of sense of the Senate.
  The amendment by Senator D'Amato will be subject to a relevant 
second-degree amendment to be offered by Senator Biden, if he chooses 
to do so.
  In addition to the debate on that amendment tomorrow, there will be 
an additional 30 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on 
that matter on next Wednesday when the vote occurs.
  I believe I have stated all of the changes. But I invite the 
Republican leader to either confirm that or correct anything that I 
have stated that is not correct.
  Mr. DOLE. That is correct. The remainder of the previous requests 
would be the same.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do I hear further objection? Is there any 
further discussion on the unanimous consent?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have not yet formally presented the 
request. But hearing no objection from any Senator, I am taking this as 
an assent to the proposed schedule as I have described. And we are now 
going to present it formally for approval by the Senate. But having 
received that assent--and I note no objection by any Senator to this 
proposal--I, therefore, will take that assent, and the obtaining of the 
agreement, the formal approval of the agreement, will merely be to 
confirm that to which we have all now agreed upon.
  Accordingly, there will be no further votes this evening. And we are 
going to try to get the agreement in place before we leave this 
evening, and once the agreement is obtained, the next record vote will 
occur on next Wednesday afternoon.
  Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I want to make a note for the Record. 
Apparently, earlier this evening at least one Member of the Senate made 
an accusation directed toward the majority leader concerning his 
attempt to accommodate me and another Member.
  I would like the Record to reflect that at no time did I seek any 
accession or window of time from the majority leader nor did he ever 
grant me any. As a matter of fact, I was meeting with a head of state, 
and it would have been enormously embarrassing to have left that head 
of state under the circumstances.
  I made it very clear to the minority leader that I wished to have no 
accommodation made on my behalf, and I felt it was more important under 
the circumstances not to embarrass a head of state.
  So any accusation directed toward the majority leader was completely 
wrong. But nonetheless, it was made, and should be clarified as the 
majority leader did absolutely nothing to accommodate me because I did 
not ask him to.
  I have tried over the years not to tread upon his generosity. This 
was one case in which that was true.
  With respect to why we are deferring any voting until next Wednesday, 
I think it is clear. There are a number of Members who have travel 
plans that we would like to accommodate. They are going on a very 
important mission, and we would like to accommodate their schedule.
  There are also intervening elections, and for that reason, there is 
no objection to postponing any voting on this measure until next 
Wednesday. But I do think it reflects the attitude on the part of some 
who would unknowingly or carelessly make accusations which are 
completely untrue.
  I wanted to clarify the record. My friend from Maine, the majority 
leader, at no time tried to accommodate this Senator by virtue of our 
friendship and the fact that we have shared the same constituency.
  Mr. MITCHELL. 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. 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.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a managers' amendment 
and ask that it be considered at this time.


                           Amendment No. 1683

 (Purpose: To make technical amendments and to prohibit lobbyists from 
   making gifts in violation of the rules of the Senate and House of 
                            Representatives)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send a managers' 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 Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1683.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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:
       On page 36, line 13, after ``client'' insert ``or firm''.
       On page 36, line 21, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       On page 37, line 6, insert ``Election'' before 
     ``Campaign''.
       On page 37, lines 19 and 20, strike ``business or 
     employment'' and insert ``business, employment, or other 
     outside''.
       On page 37, line 21, strike ``have not been offered'' and 
     all that follows through the end of the sentence and insert 
     ``are customarily provided to others in similar 
     circumstances.''
       On page 38, line 18, insert ``and are customarily provided 
     to others in similar circumstances'' before the semicolon.
       On page 41, between lines 14 and 16, insert the following:
       ``(14) A plaque, trophy, or other memento of modest value.
       ``(15) An item for which, in an unusual case, a waiver is 
     granted by the Select Committee on Ethics.
       On page 42, line 6, beginning with ``family member or 
     friend'' strike all through line 16, and insert the 
     following: ``individual providing the item--
       ``(A) seeks to deduct the value of such item as a business 
     expense on the individual's income tax return; or
       ``(B) accepts direct or indirect reimbursement or 
     compensation for the item from a client or a firm of which 
     the individual is a member or employee.
       ``(3) For purposes of clause (2), indirect reimbursement or 
     compensation for an item includes an expenditure from an 
     expense account and a fee charged by a lobbyist for the 
     purpose of compensating the lobbyist for the cost of the 
     item.
       On page 42, line 21, after ``similar event,'' insert 
     ``provided by the sponsor of the event,''.
       On page 44, line 4, strike ``to the event'' and insert ``to 
     the event,''.
       On page 44, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       ``(d) When it is not practicable to return a tangible item 
     because it is perishable, the item may, at the discretion of 
     the recipient, be given to an appropriate charity, shared 
     within the recipient's office, or destroyed.''.
       On page 45, lines 10 and 11, strike ``or committee 
     chairman'' and insert ``(or, in the case of an employee of a 
     committee, the appropriate committee chairman).
       On page 45 lines 24 and 25, strike ``or committee 
     chairman'' and insert ``(or, in the case of an employee of a 
     committee, the appropriate committee chairman)''.
       On page 46, lines 7 and 8, strike ``clauses (1) and (2)'' 
     and insert ``paragraphs 1 and 2''.
       On page 47, lines 19 and 20, strike ``government 
     organization'' and insert ``government or organization''.
       On page 48, line 8, before ``with participation'' insert a 
     period and ``No Member, officer, or employee may accept funds 
     in connection''.
       On page 48, line 18, strike ``Rule XLIII of'' and insert 
     ``rule XLIII of the Rules of''.
       On page 50, line 5, after ``client'' insert ``or firm''.
       On page 50, line 13, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       On page 50, line 22, insert ``Election'' before 
     ``Campaign''.
       On page 51, lines 10 and 11, strike ``business or 
     employment'' and insert ``business, employment, or other 
     outside''.
       On page 51, line 12, strike ``have not been offered'' and 
     all that follows to line 14, and insert ``are customarily 
     provided others in similar circumstances.''
       On page 52, line 7, insert ``and are customarily provided 
     to others in similar circumstances'' before the semicolon.
       On page 53, lines 4 and 5, strike ``Committee on Rules and 
     Administration'' and insert ``Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct''.
       On page 55, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       ``(M) A plaque, trophy, or other memento of modest value.
       ``(N) An item for which, in an unusual case, a waiver is 
     granted by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
       On page 55, line 19, beginning with ``family member or 
     friend'' strike all through page 56, line 4, and insert the 
     following: ``individual providing the item--
       ``(i) seeks to deduct the value of such item as a business 
     expense on the individual's income tax return; or
       ``(ii) accepts direct or indirect reimbursement or 
     compensation for the item from a client or a firm of which 
     the individual is a member or employee.
       ``(C) For purposes of clause (B), indirect reimbursement or 
     compensation for an item includes an expenditure from an 
     expense account and a fee charged by a lobbyist for the 
     purpose of compensating the lobbyist for the cost of the 
     item.
       On page 56, line 9, after ``similar event,'' insert 
     ``provided by the sponsor of the event''.
       On page 57, line 18, strike ``to the event'' and insert 
     ``to the event,''.
       On page 58, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(4) When it is not practical to return a tangible item 
     because it is perishable, the item may, at the discretion of 
     the recipient, be given to an appropriate charity, shared 
     within the recipient's office, or destroyed.
       On page 59, lines 2 and 3, strike ``or committee chairman'' 
     and insert ``(or, in the case of an employee of a committee, 
     the appropriate committee chairman)''.
       On page 59, lines 16 and 17, strike ``or committee 
     chairman'' and insert ``(or, in the case of an employee of a 
     committee, the appropriate committee chairman)''.
       On page 59, line 25, strike ``(A) and (B)'' and insert 
     ``(a) and (b)''.
       On page 60, lines 10 and 11, strike ``Ethics Committee'' 
     and insert ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct''.
       On page 62, line 8, strike ``Committee on House 
     Administration'' and insert ``Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct''.
       On page 36, strike lines 1-8 and insert the following:
       ``(c)(1) The restrictions in subparagraph (a) shall apply 
     to any financial contribution or expenditure relating to a 
     conference, retreat, or similar event for or on behalf of 
     Members, officers, or employees.''
       On page 36, line 20, strike ``employee; and'' and insert 
     ``employee (not including a mass mailing or other 
     solicitation directed to a broad category of the general 
     public);''.
       On page 36, line 24, strike ``employee.'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``employee; and
       ``(E) a charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a 
     lobbyist or a foreign agent in lieu of an honorarium.''
       On page 49, strike lines 17-24 and insert the following:
       ``(c)(1) The restrictions in subparagraph (a) shall apply 
     to any financial contribution or expenditure relating to a 
     conference, retreat, or similar event for or on behalf of 
     Members, officers, or employees.''
       On page 50, line 12, strike ``employee; and'' and insert 
     ``employee (not including a mass mailing or other 
     solicitation directed to a broad category of the general 
     public);''.
       On page 50, line 16, strike ``employee.'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``employee; and
       ``(E) a charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a 
     lobbyist or a foreign agent in lieu of an honorarium.''
       On page 37, line 13, strike the period and insert the 
     following:
       ``(subject to prior approval by the Ethics Committee in the 
     case of a gift to a Member, officer or employee in excess of 
     $250 that is provided on the basis of personal friendship and 
     disclosure under the Ethics in Government Act of a gift to a 
     spouse of a Member in excess of $250 that is provided on the 
     basis of personal friendship).''
       On page 51, line 4, strike the period and insert the 
     following:
       ``(subject to prior approval by the Committee on Standards 
     of Official Conduct in the case of a gift to a Member, 
     officer or employee in excess of $250 that is provided on the 
     basis of personal friendship and disclosure under the Ethics 
     in Government Act of a gift to a spouse of a Member in excess 
     of $250 that is provided on the basis of personal 
     friendship).''
       On page 63, strike line 11 and insert the following:

     SEC. 5. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE PROVISION.

       Section 901 of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (2 U.S.C. 31-
     2) is repealed.

     SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON LOBBYISTS.

       No 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 shall provide a 
     gift to any Member, officer, or employee of the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives, or a spouse or dependent of the 
     Member, officer, or employee, if the lobbyist or foreign 
     agent knows that the acceptance of the gift by the Member, 
     officer, employee, spouse, or dependent would violate Rule 
     XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate or clause 4 of Rule 
     XLIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 7. EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL RULEMAKING POWER.

       Except for sections 4, 5, and 6, this Act is enacted by 
     Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, respectively, and 
     accordingly, they shall be considered as part of the rules of 
     each House, respectively, or of the House to which they 
     specifically apply, and such rules shall supersede other 
     rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent 
     therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change such rules (insofar as they relate to 
     that House) at any time and in the same manner and to the 
     same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

     SEC. 8.

       The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, on behalf 
     of the Senate, may accept gifts provided they do not involve, 
     any duty, burden, or condition, or are not made dependent 
     upon some future performance by the United States. The 
     Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to 
     promulgate regulations to carry out this section.

     SEC. 9.

       No provision of this bill shall be interpreted to limit a 
     contribution or other payment to a legal expense fund 
     established for the benefit of a member officer, or employee 
     by any person other than a lobbyist or a foreign agent.

     SEC. 10.

       The rules on acceptance of meals and entertainment provided 
     to a Member or an employee of a Member in the Member's home 
     State prior to the adoption of reasonable limitations by the 
     appropriate Committees shall be the rules in effect on the 
     day before the effective date of this bill.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment contains a number of 
technical clarifying changes on behalf of the managers, as well as 
several amendments that have been worked out with Members from both 
sides of the aisle.
  In particular, it would clarify that:
  Gifts based on outside activities of a Member's spouse may be 
accepted to the same extent as gifts based on outside activities of the 
Member himself or herself;
  Commemorative items and mementos of modest value may be accepted from 
anybody other than a lobbyist;
  A gift may not be accepted on the basis of the personal friendship 
exception if the friend seeks reimbursement or compensation for the 
gift from a client or firm;
  The bill would not limit contributions to legal defense funds by 
anyone other than a lobbyist or a foreign agent;
  Free attendance at a widely attended event may be accepted from the 
sponsor of the event, but not from an outside party that may have 
purchased tickets to the event; and
  When it is not practical to return a gift because it is perishable, 
the gift may be given to charity or shared within the recipient's 
office.
  In addition, the amendment would make it unlawful for a lobbyist to 
provide a gift to a Member of Congress in knowing violation of the new 
rules; provide for Ethics Committee waivers of the rules in unusual 
cases and require advance authorization for gifts to Members in excess 
of $250 on the basis of personal friendship; and clarify that this bill 
is an exercise of congressional rulemaking authority. It would also 
authorize the Rules Committee to accept certain gifts on behalf of the 
Senate and revise the provision on charitable contributions in lieu of 
honoraria, so that it would apply only to lobbyists and foreign agents.
  I believe that these changes are all consistent with the underlying 
purpose of the bill and the committee's intent in adopting the 
substitute.
  Mr. President, I think this is acceptable to both sides.
  Mr. COHEN. The minority accepts the managers' amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1683) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________