[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 2 (Thursday, January 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S471-S478]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to call attention to a bit 
of an inconsistency in this amendment. If I may direct a question to 
one of the managers with regard to the amendment that is pending.
  Is it correct that the Senator from Alaska, as he reads the 
prohibition on gifts, that it precludes a Senator from being reimbursed 
for travel or transportation to a charitable event such as the event 
which for a number of years was sponsored by former Senator Jake Garn 
of Utah? As my colleagues know, that was for a charitable purpose of 
the Children's Hospital. I think several hundred thousand dollars were 
raised for that purpose. As a consequence, transportation was provided 
to Members as well as lodging.
  Under the proposed amendment, would transporation and lodging 
reimbursement for such a charitable event be precluded? I would be 
happy to have a response to my question without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator would allow the Senator from 
Michigan to respond to that question.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Surely.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the answer to the question is yes, it is 
the same language as was in the conference report which was before the 
Senate last October, which had the support of the vast majority on both 
sides of the aisle and is the same language that was in an earlier 
bill. The answer is yes.
  The reason for it is that a significant portion of the money which is 
contributed by the interest groups to those events is used for the 
transportation, lodging, and the recreation of Members of Congress. 
That is the reason for it.
  But the answer to your question is yes, it is the same language as 
was in the conference report.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I could follow up with one 
other question. Why would we preclude reimbursement for transportation 
and lodging for charitable events, yet allow transportation and lodging 
for political events?
  It is my understanding that there is nothing in this amendment that 
would preclude a Member from going out to Los Angeles for a political 
event, getting his lodging taken care of, getting his transportation 
taken care of.
  Mr. President, I think there is an inconsistency here as relates to 
the merits of considering gift ban legislation. And I wonder why the 
floor managers have not seen fit to include a prohibition which I 
understand was not in last year's bill either. I think that the 
American people should understand as we consider the merits of banning 
gifts, that there is certainly reasonable expectation that if we ban it 
for charitable events, that we ought to also ban it for political 
events. I wonder if my colleague would enlighten me as to whether I am 
accurate in my interpretation that, indeed, for political events, one 
could get full reimbursement for travel and full reimbursement for 
lodging.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Alaska raised this very point during a 
debate on the language which would ban travel to the so-called 
charitable events. That exact argument was raised. The Senator from 
Alaska attempted to strike the language which would have or which does 
prohibit the travel paid for to these so-called charitable events, and 
the amendment of the Senator from Alaska was defeated, I believe, by a 
vote of 58-37.
  So, that argument was made at the time and the distinction had to do 
with whether political events are within the political activities of 
elected officials and are different from entertainment, lodging, meals, 
and travel to entertain where one brings his or her family. The 
distinction was adopted by the Senate during that debate by a vote of 
58-37, I believe.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Well, Mr. President, I respect the response from my 
colleague, but when we consider just what constitutes a gift, I think 
we have to recognize that if we travel to a charitable event to raise 
money for a worthwhile cause, there is some merit to that. On the other 
hand, if we go to a political event in Los Angeles and get our 
transportation paid for and get our lodging paid for, that is 
meritorious, too, from a political point of view. But we are talking 
about a great inconsistency here in this legislation that is proposed 
by my colleagues on the other side. We are talking about cleansing the 
process, the process of accepting gifts. But they do not want to touch 
the area that is sacrosanct, and that is specifically political 
contributions and the way that money is raised.
  Money is raised by travel to legitimate political events. And 
reimbursement occurs not only for the Member but, very often, for the 
spouse as well. And so I hope that those watching this among the 
American public, as they reflect on the merits of this debate on gifts, 
recognize the inconsistency that is proposed here. If my friends on the 
other side were suggesting that we do away with gifts, period, do away 
with gifts associated with charitable events, we do away with gifts 
that are associated with political events from a standpoint of travel 
and a standpoint of lodging, then there would be consistency.
  But clearly, that is not the intention because there is a lot of 
money raised in this process. That process gets Members elected. So, I 
think as we address the merits of reform here in this body on the issue 
of gifts, we should specifically reflect on this other overlooked 
issue--political travel. As most of us recognize, the reason my 
amendment did not pass last year is there was some motivation, the 
motivation by those that suggested that that was too great a sacrifice, 
too great a sacrifice to give up political travel.

[[Page S472]]

  Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment offered 
by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone]. I have 
little doubt that Congress, some time this year, will vote to ban most 
gifts to Senators and Congressmen.
  Why will we make that change? Because there is a perception in the 
country that accepting a meal or a small gift from a lobbyist somehow 
corrupts the moral fiber of Congress. So we will pass the gift and meal 
ban to fix the perception problem.


                         end pac contributions

  I have no problem with banning gifts. But I believe it is 
hypocritical to say that you cannot buy a Senator lunch, but its OK for 
a political action committee [PAC] to give a Senator $10,000 for his 
political campaign or for a lobbyist to sponsor a $500-per-person 
political fundraiser.
  Last year, the Senate adopted my amendment banning all lobbyist and 
PAC contributions to Senators. However, when the lobby disclosure/gift 
ban bill emerged from the Democratically controlled conference, my PAC 
and lobbyist contribution ban reform had, not surprisingly, been 
deleted.
  Mr. President, if we are really sincere in getting special interest 
money out of politics, then we ought to stop wasting our time arguing 
over small gratuities, gifts and meals, and instead focus our efforts 
on ending the insidious activities of political action committees.
  Since passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, the 
number of PAC's increased from 608 to 4,729 in 1992. Total PAC 
contributions to Federal election candidates increased more than 2,000 
percent--from $8.5 million in 1972 to $189 million in 1992.
  In 1992, PAC contributions comprised 24 percent of Senate campaign 
receipts and 38 percent of House campaign receipts. PAC's are touted by 
their defenders as a means to allow individuals to get together and 
advance their collective interests in politics. Presumably, that would 
include supporting challengers. Yet, in 1992, in races where Members 
were up for reelection, incumbents received 86 percent of the PAC 
contributions--$126 million for incumbents versus $21 million for 
challengers.
  Overall, PAC's distributed more than $160 million to congressional 
candidates in 1992; $24 million--15 percent--went to candidates running 
for open seats. Since the 1970's, PAC's increasingly have funneled 
contributions to incumbents with little or no regard for ideology or 
voting records. Corporate and trade association PAC's are among the 
worst in this regard, giving upward of 90 percent of their PAC 
contributions to incumbents.


            reimbursement for charitable travel and lodging

  Moreover, Mr. President, I oppose the portion of this amendment that 
disallows Senators from being reimbursed for travel and lodging in 
connection with a charitable event. This is another example of the 
hypocrisy of the bill. Nothing prevents a lobbyist from paying a 
Senator's travel and lodging if it is in connection with a political 
fundraiser. If a lobbyist wants to pay for a Senator to go to Hollywood 
to raise money for the Democrats or Republicans, that's permitted.
  But if I want to host another charitable function like I had this 
summer where I raised more than $120,000 for a portable mammography 
machine that helps detect breast cancer, transportation and lodging 
cannot be reimbursed. This rule is not only hypocritical but also 
discriminates against charitable events in Alaska because the cost to 
travel there is so high.
  You can be sure that charitable functions will continue to be well-
attended by Senators, Congressmen, and lobbyists if they occur inside 
the beltway. But if we want to do a charitable function that benefits 
the needy in Alaska, it's going to be nearly impossible.
  Mr. President, my colleague Senator McConnell has been working on a 
realistic gift ban and PAC ban bill that will address the so-called 
problems associated with special interest influence in Washington. We 
will surely have an opportunity to consider these issues later in the 
year.
  But now, the issue before us is whether we are willing to apply the 
laws we impose on the rest of the country on our own institution. This 
amendment is merely a diversion from that issue. Let us pass the 
congressional coverage bill now, and address the gift ban/PAC ban 
legislation at a more appropriate time.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  So, Mr. President, I am not going to talk any longer. I just wanted 
to point out the inconsistency here.
  This whole matter began rather curiously when the association of 
former Senator Jake Garn from Utah ran a charitable event that was for 
a children's hospital--a very worthwhile cause. But a so-called 
television expose featured several Members of this body, some of whom 
have already spoken on the issue of gift bans, and which implied that 
Members were being bought off by accepting transportation and accepting 
lodging.
  There is very little consideration as to the contribution given to 
the Children's Hospital. I participate in that event each year, and I 
intend to participate in the event again this year because it is a 
worthwhile cause. Because Senators come, there is an attraction, 
whether it be curious or otherwise, to raise money for the effort, and 
it is a worthwhile effort.
  Obviously, I can hold a charity event here in Washington, DC. If I 
hold that charity event here, there is no transportation; there is no 
lodging. I can legitimately do it. But if I want to hold it in my 
State, it is a significant cost to Members if they want to come up to 
Alaska for a fishing event of some kind for a worthwhile charity.
  We had an event last year to buy a new mammogram, a mammography 
machine for the Best Cancer Clinic of Alaska. We raised $149,000. There 
were no other Senators who could come because we were in session, but 
we were not precluded because the legislation proposed last year did 
not pass the conference. But it was a worthwhile cause.
  The inconsistency, I think, is obvious, as a consequence of what we 
have before us. We seem willing to do away with reimbursement for 
transportation and lodging, but we would still provide it for political 
events. That is the inconsistency which this Senator sees is so 
glaring. That is why I urge my colleagues, when the appropriate hour is 
here, to reject the amendment because it is simply inconsistent; it 
does not do the job; it is less than a halfway effort.
  Let me also comment relative to remarks that were made by others who 
spoke with regard to gifts to chairmen and CEO's of corporations. I was 
a CEO. There are policies within corporations that you designate 
procedures, and that is entirely different from the function within 
this body. Those people, through boards of directors and oversight and 
checks and balances, have to maintain the scrutiny and the appropriate 
responsibility to the shareholders. We have a responsibility to the 
citizens of this country, but part of that responsibility is 
consistency.
  When we talk about a gift ban, if we are going to be consistent, we 
are going to do away with a gift ban and political contributions 
associated with transportation and travel. That is what is lacking in 
this legislation.
  I hope we will have an opportunity to get into this at some length 
and hold the necessary hearings so we do not just end up window 
dressing a situation that many of the American public assume is being 
taken care of under the gift ban, but still provides us with 
transportation and lodging for our political events.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Michigan for responding 
to my questions. I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I may comment further, briefly--and I 
know my friend from Colorado seeks recognition; I will not be long--on 
the points that were made by our friend from Alaska. I just have a 
couple things to say.
  First of all, we sure do need political campaign finance reform. I 
could not agree with the Senator more. One of the glaring omissions 
from the Gingrich contract, it seems to me, is that there is no 
reference to campaign finance reform and how money is raised. I sure 
hope we address it. It is a glaring omission from any contract of 
reform.
  Second, last year during the debate on this bill, the Senator from 
Alaska moved to strike the prohibition on reimbursement for 
recreational travel 
[[Page S473]] and made the same points that were made here. The Senate 
rejected the deletion of that prohibition by a vote of 58 to 37.
  Is it inconsistent, then, to permit travel to political events? Some 
think it is, perhaps; some think it is not. Political events are closer 
to our duties in that they are not recreational; they are different.
  On the other hand, for those who think there is no distinction, for 
those who think there is an inconsistency, they had an opportunity to 
strike travel reimbursement to political events. No Senator, including 
the Senator from Alaska, offered an amendment to strike travel 
reimbursement to political events.
  So if there is an inconsistency that people feel here, they surely 
had an opportunity to offer the amendment to strike that travel 
reimbursement. There was no such amendment offered. I do not know 
whether it would have been adopted or defeated.
  I also know that 37 Republicans and a larger majority, I believe, of 
Democrats, specifically supported this gift ban language in October; 37 
Republicans cosponsored a resolution of this gift ban language, and a 
large majority of Democrats voted for cloture on the conference report.
  So we had a situation where if there were an inconsistency perceived, 
any Senator could have moved to strike the travel reimbursement. The 
Senate did vote to prohibit recreational travel, and that is the way it 
appeared before the Senate in the conference report when the majority 
of Senators of both parties indicated support for the language.
  So I think there is a differentiation, arguably, but there is not. 
Any Senator could have offered to strike the travel reimbursement, and 
no Senator chose to eliminate that alleged inconsistency by amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may respond to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think my friend will recall, last 
year I offered an amendment and the amendment was adopted banning all 
lobbyist and PAC contributions to Senators. It was rather interesting 
because that clearly cut to the core of the question of PAC 
contributions.
  However, when the lobby disclosure gift ban emerged--emerged, Mr. 
President, from a Democratic-controlled conference--my PAC and lobbyist 
contribution ban reform surprisingly had been deleted.
  I say to my good friend, clearly we had an opportunity last year to 
delete all PAC contributions. It passed the Senate, but it was not 
supported in a Democratic-controlled conference.
  The Senator from Alaska has to conclude one thing: A gift is a gift. 
If it is a gift associated with a charitable event, it is a gift 
associated with a charitable event and the merits are the charity. If 
it is for political purposes, it is still a gift. It is a gift if it is 
travel. It is a gift if it is lodging. And the justification is the 
political event and who benefits from the political event.
  Sure, we are professionals. We are professional politicians, so we 
obviously benefit, as opposed to a worthwhile charity out there. If we 
did not subtract the transportation and did not subtract the lodging, 
there would be more money coming back associated with the political 
event. That is the logic that is used to say what is wrong with the 
charitable event. They take too much out for travel and lodging.
  I think we have made the point, Mr. President, and it is one that 
this proposal lacks consistency and it lacks the reform that is 
recognized. I know my friend from Michigan and I agree that we need 
substantial review of the various political contributions, and that 
will come. But I rise in the sense of pointing out that, indeed, we 
have an inconsistency. We had a chance to clear it last year by 
accepting my amendment which was done in this body, but I think many 
people knew it would die in a Democratic-controlled conference, which 
it did.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Alaska will yield briefly, 
before he yields the floor, for a question.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. I was one of the conferees last year in that conference, 
and the language which was added here was not adopted by the 
conference.
  I do not know of any Republican in the conference or Democrat that 
supported the language being in the final conference report because it 
would have had the anomalous effect of discriminating against 
incumbents against challengers and is more properly part of campaign 
finance reform. However, that was not just Democrats in the conference 
that did not hold out for that language. There were no Republicans as 
well. And I was wondering whether or not my friend from Alaska was 
aware of that.
  And second, this amendment that is pending is amendable. If the 
Senator from Alaska feels there is some inconsistency here, he is free 
to offer an amendment to the pending amendment to strike the 
reimbursement for political travel the way it is stricken for 
recreational travel.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In response to my friend from Michigan, obviously I 
was not in the conference but one has to conclude that as a consequence 
of the prevailing vote which this body initiated by adopting my 
amendment banning all lobbyist and PAC contributions to Senators, one 
would think that the conferees would have a responsibility to support 
it. Clearly, they chose not to. And one can come to his or her own 
conclusion as to why.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
Congressional Accountability Act.
  I think my first contact with this basic issue that we consider 
tonight came in 1983 when I was a member on the House Judiciary 
Committee. At that point, Congress was in the process of adding new 
statutory controls over the direction of the private sector. I offered 
an amendment in that committee to apply the same guidelines, 
regulations, and restrictions to Congress that we applied to other 
members of this society.
  That amendment lost on a straight party-line vote. Every Democrat in 
that subcommittee voted against it. When I attempted to offer it in 
full committee every Democratic Member voted against it, and I was 
refused an opportunity to offer the amendment later on in the process.
  Thus, it is with some surprise that I find that this measure, passed 
the House unanimously last night. It appears that good ideas sometimes 
grow.
  I think part of the reason this bill is going to pass, and the reason 
it passed in the other body, is because the spotlight is on and people 
know it is not fair to subject them, the working men and women in this 
country, to rules that this Congress will not apply to itself. It is a 
matter of simple fairness.
  Mr. President, let me confess also to another reason for favoring 
this measure. The burden we impose on working men and women in this 
Nation is atrocious. It is criminal what we do to the men and women of 
this Nation who work and make the Nation go. The legal liability we 
impose on them, the paperwork we impose on them, the incredible overlay 
of bureaucracy, red tape and guidance is outrageous. The tragedy is 
that nearly half the Members of Congress have not had an opportunity to 
work in the private sector. Many of them do not appreciate the 
burdensome regulations we have put on working men and women nationwide.
  I truly believe that if Members of Congress have to live under the 
laws we impose on the rest of the Nation, two things will happen. One, 
we will be treated fairly and they will be treated more fairly. And 
two, we will take a strong look at the kinds of laws we impose on 
people. This country is overregulated, productivity is damaged. We have 
laid a burden of redtape, regulation, lawyers, CPA's, and audits on 
this Nation that strangles our ability to compete in the international 
marketplace.
  What we need more than anything else is the men and women of this 
Congress to realize the damage they have done to this Nation and inject 
common sense into the kinds of statutory control we impose on our 
country.
  So I am going to support this bill. I am going to do it not only 
because of simple fairness, but because I firmly believe that it will 
lead to the end of 
[[Page S474]] overregulation imposed on the citizens of our country.
  Mr. President, there are a number of amendments, many of them 
sincerely offered and well founded, that should be considered. However, 
the leadership has promised that they will provide another vehicle to 
consider all of these amendments.
  Indeed, there are many additions to this bill that I would like to 
see. I will support the effort to bring these additional measures to 
the floor.
  I wish to say to the Senator from Michigan I think he has some good 
ideas. I have supported the gift ban in the past, and I intend to in 
the future. But I wish to see this bill enacted. I am not going to 
support amendments to this bill at this time. I am going to trust the 
leadership's commitment to bring these measures to the floor and 
provide a full vote.
  My hope is that we will debate the issues Members feel strongly 
about; that we will proceed to pass this bill and enact it, and that we 
will get to the additional task of other measures as quickly as 
possible.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I shall be brief. I begin by associating myself with 
the passion of the distinguished Senator from Colorado, as he 
articulates a very strong position against the overregulation by the 
Federal Government which is well known across the length and breadth of 
this land. And I support the efforts which have been brought by the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] and the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] on S. 2 to provide 
accountability by the Congress, by making Members of the Senate and 
Members of the House of Representatives subject to the same laws which 
govern every other citizen.
  As a matter of basic fairness, Mr. President, there is no reason why 
a Senator or Member of the House should not be subject to every rule of 
law which governs every other American.
  Basic fairness should mean that every rule of law applies equally to 
Members of the Senate and House as they do to every other American. And 
if that were the case, there would be less regulation in our country.
  With respect to the amendment which is now pending, offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan, to have a gift ban, I believe that 
there is great merit in that proposal and in fact supported the gift 
ban when it was before the Senate during the 103d or last session of 
Congress. There are a great many amendments which might be offered to 
the pending legislation; also talk about campaign finance reform which 
in a sense is related to the subject before the Senate at the present 
time.
  I believe that it is very important that we move forward with the 
Congressional Accountability Act, which is the pending legislation, 
without encumbering it with other amendments which will slow its 
progress.
  The reality, Mr. President, which may not be known by many watching 
on C-SPAN 2 is that when an amendment is tabled or rejected on the 
pending legislation, it does not mean that those who vote in favor of 
tabling the amendment disagree with the substance of it, if it were 
present as a freestanding bill, as it was during the last Congress and, 
as I said before, a measure which I supported. There is an effort known 
well through the length and breadth of the land at the present time for 
the newly elected 104th Congress, controlled by the Republicans, to get 
some things done and done promptly. And the House of Representatives is 
moving on similar legislation on congressional accountability, and it 
is the effort now of the Republican-controlled Senate to move ahead 
with this bill without having amendments pending which will slow the 
progress.
  Our distinguished majority leader has already given assurances that 
this issue will be revisited and the distinguished Senator from Maine, 
Senator Cohen, has commented about bringing the matter up again with 
Senator Levin of Michigan. So this matter will again be before the 
Senate and we can act to do what is necessary to ban lobbyists' gifts. 
But at the present time I think our focus ought to be on congressional 
accountability, which I support, and that is why I will back the 
forthcoming motion by the distinguished majority leader to table the 
pending amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished 
majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have had considerable debate on 
this issue and I do not, certainly, want to cut off anybody on the 
other side. But we have a problem that some of us are going to attend a 
dinner tonight in honor of the two leaders. Some may not be going 
there. But I would like to move to table the pending amendment and have 
the vote begin at 7:15, if that would accommodate the minority leader 
and the Senator from Montana. Then I need just about 1 minute.
  Would that be enough?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield, I know 
Senator Baucus has indicated to me that he needed somewhere around 6 or 
7 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Six or seven minutes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I only need a couple minutes, so I think that would work 
out very well.
  Mr. DOLE. So could we agree, get unanimous consent there be a motion 
to table at 7:15?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That will be agreeable to this Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. If I could just have 2 minutes of that time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished minority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I first want to applaud Senators Levin 
and Wellstone for offering this excellent amendment. It is very similar 
to the provisions in S. 10, the Comprehensive Congressional Reform Act 
which I introduced yesterday, and which a number of our colleagues have 
cosponsored. I believe it is essential that the amendment be included 
in the final legislation.
  This debate really picks up where we left off last year when 
Republicans blocked consideration of the legislation which was 
developed through the tireless efforts of the, at that time, chairman 
and others. I hope my Republican colleagues will now work with us to 
enact this amendment.
  Those of us who want real reform will not stop at congressional 
coverage. We have to restore public confidence in Government, and our 
reform efforts must go further. The Levin-Wellstone amendment does just 
that. Lobby reform is central to true congressional reform. Without it 
we will never end the undue influences of special interests. But 
without a ban on special interest gifts to Members of Congress and 
their staffs, congressional reform is reform in name only. Senators 
Levin and Wellstone and many others have worked hard on lobbying and 
gift reform and, in so doing, have demonstrated their commitment to 
true reform, to the end of business as usual.
  So again, Mr. President, passing the bill that should have been 
passed last fall, and would have been passed if it had not been for the 
Republican move to block it, is a very good start today. But it will be 
a hollow, cynical start if it turns out that those who blocked that 
legislation did so only to reintroduce it this year, take the credit, 
and block other essential reforms. Lobby reform and a ban on gifts are 
essential to a genuine reform effort. Let us begin the year by 
finishing our old business and moving forward from here. Doing so will 
provide an even stronger foundation upon which to rebuild trust in this 
institution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Congressional 
Compliance Act. It is time for Congress to act by example instead of by 
exemption. This act will apply 12 basic American labor laws to 
Congress. They include the civil rights laws, minimum wage, the 
Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Family Leave Act, and more.
  If these and other acts covered by the Congressional Compliance Act 
are passed, the Federal Government's regulations on the people will 
then be imposed also on the Congress. In these laws the Federal 
Government imposes 
[[Page S475]] a good bit of regulation and paperwork on private 
businesses. All that is in pursuit of good, important goals.
  These laws have done a lot of good. Undoubtedly some can be improved. 
But on the whole they make sure American workplaces are decent places, 
and there is no excuse for not asking the same of the Congress.
  There is some symbolic importance to this. It shows that, as the 
Founding Fathers who wrote our Constitution intended, today's 
Representatives of the people are truly Representatives--that is, not a 
special privileged class.
  The act will also have concrete beneficial effects. First, applying 
basic labor laws to Congress will put a brake on overregulation and 
overlegislation. Laws like minimum wage, OSHA, and so on are important. 
Businesses should have some basic standards. And it is no accident that 
America has a lower rate of deaths and injury on the job than any other 
industrial nation. It is because OSHA is a tough, effective law. It can 
no doubt be improved, but we do need a tough, effective OSHA law.
  That is one side of the coin. On the other side is that well-meaning 
people, in pursuit of honorable goals, are sometimes tempted to go too 
far. They can lose sight of the basic American principle that in the 
vast majority of occasions, ordinary people do not need a lot of rules 
and regulations to do the right thing. So it is easy for people who 
write laws to move on from setting basic standards to requiring 
paperwork that adds costs, squeezes jobs, and does little good. With 
this law in place, each Member of Congress will understand the burden a 
small business owner faces because that Member will live under 
precisely the same burden. He or she will fill out the same forms, type 
the same reports, and adjust his or her payroll in the same way. If you 
live by the regulations you write, you probably will not go too far.
  Second, the laws themselves will do some good. Legal guarantees of 
safe workplaces, minimum wage, guaranteed family leave, and protection 
for civil rights in congressional offices are important. They were 
passed to deal with the small minority of abusive employers. And no 
doubt, in a Congress of 535 Members and dozens of support offices, 
there are some offices where civil rights laws or workplace safety 
standards are not being met. This law will help stop that.
  Finally, this bill goes a long way toward making Congress a more 
responsive body. I believe it needs to do more; to make it a 
responsible body. I thus intend to support an amendment Senator McCain 
will offer in February that makes sure when Members of Congress are 
found guilty of violating any of these laws, that taxpayers are not hit 
with the fine for it.
  Again, this reform is long overdue. I cosponsored it in the last 
Congress. I applaud Senators Lieberman and Grassley for pushing the 
issue tirelessly throughout the Congress. And finally, today, we will 
see this body pass it. I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if no one else wishes to speak and if the 
majority leader does not need the full 5 minutes, I will take a minute 
or two before his motion.
  Mr. DOLE. I just need 3 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the majority leader. I will just use 2 minutes.
  I want to again urge our colleagues to defeat the motion to table. 
This is precisely the same gift rule which the vast majority of 
Democrats and 37 Republicans said they supported last October. There is 
no change in it. It would seem to me that we cannot duck this issue any 
longer by just simply saying let us delay it, let us delay it.
  If we are serious about reform and the way we run this place, we have 
to finally, after years of talk, end this scene where free travel, free 
tickets, free meals from lobbyists and others with interest in 
legislation, come to Members of this Congress.
  It is unseemly. It creates the exact wrong appearance. The American 
public wants to end it. They are right. This is the time to end it with 
rules that were supported by the vast majority of Senators in October, 
including the majority of the Republicans and Democrats. I hope that 
the tabling motion will be defeated.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from Kansas [Mr. Dole].
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the point I want to make was made before 
last night. After 25 minutes of debate the House passed this measure by 
a vote of 429 to zero. If we want to take 2 days, or 3 days I guess we 
can. But I want to pass the coverage proposal as advanced by the 
Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Connecticut. It is bipartisan. 
It seems to me that the sooner we can do that the sooner we can move on 
to other legislation.
  I indicated to my Republican colleagues earlier today that we intend 
to not only take this matter up but lobby reform, and other matters 
that we believe should be addressed which were addressed last year.
  I certainly commend the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, for his 
leadership. But we believe there are some changes that can be made even 
in the gift ban. This amendment would not be effective in any event 
until the end of May 1995.
  It would be my hope that by that time we will have even a better 
package. I hope that we can table this amendment and move to any other 
amendments which my colleagues may offer. But we are going to finish 
this bill either tonight or tomorrow or on Monday unless there is an 
agreement, a reasonable agreement. I should not say that we will finish 
it. I know that I have been in the Senate longer than that. We will try 
to finish the bill by tomorrow or Monday. I know Senators can prevent 
that from happening.
  So I urge my colleagues, including some of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who had misgivings about lobbying reform and the gift 
ban late last year, to join me in tabling this motion so we can move 
ahead and pass this bill without amendment.
  I think there is a good potential that the House may take our bill 
because it is a bit stronger and pass the Senate bill unless we clutter 
it up with amendments that require us to spend a considerable time in 
conference.
  If anybody else wishes 2 minutes on either side, I would be happy to 
yield. If not, is there any objection to starting the vote?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have notified on the hotline that it 
would be at 7:15. I would appreciate it if the majority leader would 
not and to save us a couple of minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. I would be happy to add 2 minutes at the end.
  Mr. FORD. The Senator has that prerogative. He is the leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I am going to do it habitually, but I think some may want 
to vote right now and leave. I have already made the motion to table 
the underlying amendment, the Levin amendment.
  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.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to come to the floor today 
as the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Governmental 
Affairs has jurisdiction over this legislation. Our effort to bring 
this matter to the Senate immediately, is not following the usual 
procedure of committee referral. But this issue is not new. S. 2 is a 
modified version of H.R. 4822 as reported by the committee at the end 
of last session. For a detailed explanation of that bill and for 
further legislative history, I would refer Members to our committee 
report No. 103-397. To outline briefly, the committee did hold a 
hearing on June 29, 1994, and heard testimony from a variety of 
witnesses, including legal and constitutional scholars, along with our 
own Senate Legal Counsel, Michael Davidson. On September 20, 1994, the 
committee voted to report an amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 4822, which had passed the House of Representatives on August 10.
  S. 2 was developed over the past several weeks in a remarkably 
cooperative effort of a bi-partisan working group comprised of Members 
and staff from 
[[Page S476]] both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The 
product we have before us today reflects the positive results that can 
be achieved when we are willing to work together.
  I want to commend the chief sponsors and floor managers, Senators 
Grassley and Lieberman, for their leadership and perseverance on the 
issue. Without them, as well as the leadership of the former chairman 
and current ranking member of the committee, Senator Glenn, we wouldn't 
be here debating this issue today. I am pleased to join with them in 
this effort to enact S. 2 as the first order of business in this 104th 
Congress.
  I believe the bill before us demonstrates that congressional 
compliance can be achieved without compromising the doctrine of 
separation of powers. Great care has been taken to maintain the 
integrity of the Congress as a separate branch of Government. However, 
there is no way to guarantee that the potential may exist for conflict 
between the legislative and judicial branches concerning enforcement of 
subpoena powers.
  Another major challenge was to create a bicameral Office of 
Compliance, yet at the same time retain the independence of the Senate 
and House of Representatives to establish their respective Rules of 
Procedure without interference from the other body. Again, I believe 
this issue has been resolved.
  Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson wrote that ``the Framers of our 
Constitution . . . (took) care to provide that the laws should bind 
equally on all, and especially that those who make them shall not 
exempt themselves from their operation.'' In light of Mr. Jefferson's 
observation, one might wonder why Congress created an ever-growing, 
complex set of employment and labor laws for the private sector that it 
has failed for many years to apply equally to themselves. While we are 
here today to correct that disparity, I do want to point out that 
Congress has made significant progress over the past few years in 
extending employment laws to congressional employees--most notably the 
Senate action in 1991 extending basic civil rights protections to 
Senate employees and creating the Senate Office of Fair Employment 
Practices.
  S. 2 will go a step further in bringing together the patchwork of 
laws that have applied in the past and make clear how these laws apply 
and provides for enhanced enforcement of those laws by establishing a 
more independent and credible process for remedial action.
  S. 2 is an extremely important measure for another reason. Beyond its 
application of laws to the Congress. It is important because of the 
message it sends to the American public. It would be naive not to 
recognize that this legislation is driven in large part by pressure 
from the public. This is an issue of fundamental fairness to them. We 
have all heard the references to the ``Imperial Congress.'' For far too 
long Congress has held an image of isolation, privilege and 
superiority. That is an image that must change, so that the governed 
once again have confidence and respect in those that govern. Enacting 
S. 2 is a critical step moving us in that direction.
  Enactment of this legislation will teach Congress valuable lessons 
about living with the laws it passes. Many of the laws that Congress 
imposes on citizens are complex and burdensome. It's only fair to make 
Congress deal with the same paperwork and bureaucracy that the average 
citizen does. That's certainly a complaint I hear from many of my 
constituents. Compliance is not simply a matter of probity; it is also 
a matter of paperwork, bureaucracy, and expense.
  While I have long been a supporter of applying private sector laws to 
Congress, I recognize that some members may be concerned that these 
laws may be misapplied or abused for political, rather than legitimate, 
purposes. I share this concern, but I hope that rule 11 of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure will fairly and adequately address this 
concern. Rule 11 has been recently strengthened to specifically provide 
for sanctions when misrepresentations are made to the court for an 
improper purpose. Significantly, the rule is designed to cause 
litigants to stop and think before initially making legal or factual 
contentions and is designed to deter misconduct. I am hopeful that rule 
11 in conjunction with the counseling and mediation process developed 
by the Office of Compliance will preclude abuses of the process.
  Let me reiterate, I do believe this is a very important issue and 
that we will be sending the right message to the American people by 
moving this bill quickly, without extraneous amendments.
  Once again, I thank Senator Grassley for managing this bill on our 
side and also want to welcome him as a new member of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am very pleased to join Senator 
Grassley, Senator Lieberman and my colleagues in the introduction of 
the Congressional Accountability Act of 1994. This legislation applies 
10 labor and employment laws to Congress: First, the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938, second, the Federal Labor-Management Relations 
Act 1978, third, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, fourth 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, fifth, the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act of 1967, sixth, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
1990, seventh, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, eight, 
Employee Polygraph Protection Act; ninth, Work Adjustment and 
Retraining Notification Act and tenth, Veterans Reemployment Act.
  James Madison is often quoted in relation to the issue of 
congressional coverage. He said, ``Congress can make no law which will 
not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as on the 
great mass of society.'' But I am concerned that the meaning of his 
words is lost due to their frequency of use in this debate.
  What was Madison getting at, and what was so important for him to 
incorporate this phrase into the Federalist Papers? I believe he had a 
profound sense of public accountability and integrity in mind when he 
penned those words. He also remembered the degenerating effect of 
aristocracy upon the people.
  Today, we are in a much different time period, but are never-the-less 
confronting the same issues as Madison and our founding fathers. To 
bolster the integrity of this institution, now is the time for the 
adoption of congressional coverage legislation in keeping with our 
American tradition. Congress has been exempting itself from employment 
and labor laws since 1935. I suspect this was done in a sincere effort 
to maintain a separation of powers. It was also done in a time when 
Congress was a far simpler organization, not the enormous bureaucracy 
we have today. Because Congress has changed, so must the laws governing 
it. Until we are prepared to live under the laws, Congress should not 
be imposing them on anybody else.
  If business or private individuals run afoul of any labor, employment 
and health and safety laws, they face bureaucratic headaches and 
possible Federal court litigation. Congress has exempted itself from 
these laws completely or has limited redress with no right to full 
judicial appeal.
  During consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, I offered an 
amendment which would have made Congress and its instrumentalities 
subject to all regulations and remedies contained in many of the 
employment, discrimination, and health and safety laws enacted since 
the 1930's. Later, I introduced the amendment as a free-standing bill, 
the Congressional and Presidential Accountability Act both the 103d and 
104th Congresses.
  Adopted in lieu of my amendment was a provision authored by the 
Majority Leader George Mitchell and Senator Grassley which provides 
procedures to give Senate employees protection under several civil 
rights laws and limited judicial review. Under the adopted amendment, 
the Senate was permitted to establish an internal enforcement mechanism 
under civil rights laws. This was a good beginning.
  Since my efforts on the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the efforts of 
those before me on this issue including Senator Grassley, the joint 
committee to reorganize Congress and the bipartisan task force on 
Senate coverage were established and further analyzed and researched 
the issue.
  The bipartisan task force on Senate coverage report was sent to the 
majority and Republican leader on November 
[[Page S477]] 19, 1993. Although the Senate task force report served an 
important function in analyzing the issue of congressional coverage, as 
members of the task force Senator Grassley and I believed its 
conclusions would only perpetuate the current lack of accountability to 
the laws of the land by Congress.
  Following the task force conclusions, I was pleased to join Senator 
Grassley and Senator Lieberman in the introduction of the Congressional 
Accountability Act during the 103d Congress. I believe this legislation 
met the principles set forth by James Madison.
  During the 103d Congress, the House overwhelmingly approved 427 to 4, 
similar legislation introduced by Congressman Shays and Congressman 
Swett. Following the House action the Democratic leadership in the 
Senate blocked any action and the 103d Congress ended without covering 
Congress under the laws of the land.
  The legislation before us today will bring Congress under the 
coverage of labor, civil rights and health and safety laws from which 
it has been exempt. I am proud to say that I believe this Congress will 
finally do the right thing and ensure that Congress lives under the 
laws it imposes on other and perhaps the consequence will be to ensure 
that Congress will now understand how the laws it passes actually work.
  Our legislation establishes an independent Office of Congressional 
Compliance to administer and enforce these laws. It also allows a 
congressional employee the right to sue in Federal court under those 
laws which allow a similarly situated private sector employee the right 
to sue. This right is extended to collective bargaining and 
occupational safety and health claims.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation to end the 
practice of Congress living above the law and help to regain the trust 
and confidence of the public.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my firm support for 
congressional coverage legislation. This bill represents a most 
fundamental ingredient in the recipe to reform this institution. By 
exempting itself from the laws it passes, Congress is truly losing 
touch with the practical consequences of those laws. And today, we have 
a Congress in Wonderland passing legislation that does not reflect true 
workplace realities.
  Over the years we have heard some very artful explanations as to why 
Congress continues to exempt itself from the very laws it passes. We 
have heard that the constitution prevents executive branch enforcement 
of employment laws on Congress. We have heard that the constitution's 
``Speech or Debate'' clause protecting Members of Congress from legal 
challenges against them includes their actions as employers. And we 
have also heard how being a Member of Congress embodies certain highly 
unique circumstances not faced by other employers. I must say, not one 
of these explanations warrants these continued exemptions.
  One of the biggest reason why Congress so freely exempts itself is 
because it is not governed by statute--rather we live by our own rules. 
We set rules which allow us to go about our merry way with little fear 
that if we do happen to cross the line from time to time, it doesn't 
really matter because there is no practical enforcement mechanism.
  The current system allows us to change the rules at any time--and for 
any reason. For example, when the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was signed 
into law, Senators were held personally liable for any unlawful 
discrimination. But lo and behold, this provision was quietly dropped 
from the 1993 legislative branch appropriations bill.
  Another example involves the minimum wage law. Last time we increased 
the minimum wage to $4.25 an hour, Congress was covered. But because 
the law was so burdensome, the U.S. Congress effectively exempted 
itself from the bill's major provisions a short time later. Just 
imagine if we allowed private employers to behave like this. Imagine an 
employer tailoring regulations to suit his convenience, and changing 
them whenever he chooses. Congress would cast a most disapproving eye 
upon that. So would the public.
  Mr. President, it is no wonder why business organizations have made 
congressional accountability their top legislative priority. If 
Congress is forced to live with the laws it passes, it may act with 
considerably more prudence.
  Congressional accountability could well become a practical tool in 
our legislative work. True congressional coverage would provide each of 
us with immediate impact as to the successes, failures and 
unanticipated implications of our programs. Exemptions, on the other 
hand, insulate us from the real impact of the laws we pass. We need to 
know how our laws feel to those out there in the real world where the 
rubber hits the road.
  Congressional accountability is an issue of necessity. New employment 
laws are increasingly rushed through congress on unrelated bills, with 
no opportunity for public hearings or debate. It is imperative that we 
put the brakes on the accelerating speed of carelessly enacted 
employment requirements.
  Congressional accountability is also about simple fairness. We do 
indeed deal with a lot of very complicated issues here in the U.S. 
Senate, but this issue is not really very complicated at all. The rest 
of American voters are out there paying taxes, complying with Federal 
regulation after Federal regulation, and playing by the rules. On the 
other hand, there is the perception that we continue to sit here in our 
ivory towers issuing our decrees, yet, telling the American public to 
``Do as we say, not as we do.'' It is only fair that our own 
congressional employees should be completely covered by employment 
laws.
  I urge the Senate to pass the Congressional Accountability Act. To 
pass it cleanly, kept free of unnecessary and nongermane amendments. I 
thank the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Kansas to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Michigan. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] and the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], the 
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], the Senator from Nebraska 
[Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb], and the Senator 
from Illinois [Mr. Simon] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is 
absent on official business.
  I also announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is absent 
because of illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Illinois [Mr. Simon] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] would 
each vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 39, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 2 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Gramm
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     McCain
     Nunn
     Robb
     Simon
  So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S478]]

  Mr. FORD. Mr. 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.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                            AMENDMENT NO. 4

(Purpose: To prohibit the personal use of accrued frequent flyer miles 
               by Members and employees of the Congress)

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  I will not debate this amendment, but I am going to ask the clerk to 
read the entire amendment. I think it explains it totally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for himself and Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 4.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.--.USE OF FREQUENT FLYER MILES.

       (a) Limitation of the Use of Travel Awards.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, or any rule, 
     regulation, or other authority, any travel award that accrues 
     by reason of official travel of a Member, officer, or 
     employee of the Senate or House of Representatives shall be 
     considered the property of the Government and may not be 
     converted to personal use.
       (b) Regulations.--The Committee on House Oversight of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration of the Senate shall have authority to 
     prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
       (c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``travel award'' means any frequent flyer, 
     free, or discounted travel, or other travel benefit, whether 
     awarded by coupon, membership, or otherwise; and
       (2) the term ``official travel'' means travel engaged in 
     the course of official business of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the clerk.
  Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk relates to the 
use of frequent flier bonuses usually awarded by airlines. Both the 
Senate travel regulations and those applicable to executive branch 
travel require that any such benefits paid by an airline that are based 
on travel that was paid by taxpayer funds must be used for official 
purposes.
  Senate travel regulations on this subject are as follows:

       Discount coupons, frequent flyer mileage, or other evidence 
     of reduced fares, obtained on official travel, shall be 
     turned in to the office for which the travel was performed so 
     that they may be utilized for future official travel. This 
     regulation is predicated upon the general government policy 
     that all promotional materials such as bonus flights, 
     reduced-fare coupons, cash, merchandise, gifts, credits 
     toward future free or reduced costs of services or goods, 
     earned as a result of trips paid by appropriated funds are 
     the property of the government and may not be retained by the 
     traveler for personal use.

  This amendment will require that all such benefits be used for 
official travel by the office that pays for the original travel. In 
this way, the Government rather than the individual traveler will 
receive the benefit.
  The correctness of this policy is so obvious that I find it strange 
that an amendment, such as the one I now offer, should have to be 
considered. I can find no justification for a public official or 
elected Member of Congress to consider and use such a bonus for 
personal purposes. The value of any such bonus awarded to a traveler is 
included in the price of the ticket. Since the taxpayers have paid for 
that benefit when the travel is charged to the Government, it is only 
right that the taxpayer receive such a benefit.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  

                          ____________________