[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.
____________________