[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 123 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10792-S10794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CONGRESSIONAL GIFT REFORM ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of S. 
1061 which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1061) to provide for congressional gift reform.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. S. 1061 is the so-called Congressional 
Gift Reform Act; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased we have now returned to the 
gift reform issue, and before us is the congressional gift reform bill 
which has been cosponsored by Senators Cohen, Glenn, Wellstone, 
Lautenberg, Feingold, Baucus, and McCain.
  I ask unanimous consent Senator Bingaman be added as a cosponsor of 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request is agreed to.
  The Senator from Michigan has the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Was my unanimous consent agreement 
relative to Senator Bingaman adopted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it was.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this bill will put an end to business as 
usual when it comes to gifts that come to Members of Congress and to 
our staffs and employees. It will end the so-called recreational trips 
for Members who play in charitable golf, tennis, and skiing 
tournaments. It will put an end to the meals paid for by lobbyists and 
others, put an end to the free tickets to sporting events, concerts, 
and theater events.
  Under the current congressional gift rules, Members and staff are 
free to accept gifts up to $250 from anybody, including lobbyists. 
Gifts under $100 do not even count. So we are free to accept an 
unlimited number of gifts from anybody as long as they are worth less 
than $100 in value and we do not even have to disclose them. And meals 
do not count either. They are unlimited, regardless of their dollar 
value, and do not have to be disclosed either. Members and staff are 
free to travel to recreational events such as golf, tennis, and ski 
tournaments.
  That is the status quo. That is business as usual. It simply is not 
acceptable anymore. The public has lost too much confidence in 
Congress. More than half of the American people surveyed think that 
decisions in Washington are made by special interests.
  The other day we adopted lobby reform, which is the first of three 
major steps that we must take in the area of political reform to help 
restore public confidence in this institution.
  The next two steps are bigger steps. One relates to gifts and the 
other relates to campaign finance reform. Last year, when we debated 
this gifts bill, we had Washington restaurants telling us that if 
lobbyists could not take Members out to meals, the restaurants in 
Washington, a lot of them, would close. People were saying that the 
Kennedy Center would go under if lobbyists could not buy tickets for 
Members of Congress.
  What a terrible indictment that all would be, if it were true. Can it 
really be that we accept so many free meals and tickets that entire 
industries are dependent upon our continuing to accept such gifts? I 
hope not. And I believe not.
  S. 1061, which is the gift reform bill now at the desk, contains 
tough new congressional gift rules that were included in last year's 
lobby disclosure bill. This bill, our bill, would prohibit special 
interests from paying for free recreational travel, free golf 
tournaments, tennis tournaments, ski holidays, and put an end to 
unlimited football, basketball, and concert tickets.
  Members of this body will no doubt remember, just as the public will 
no doubt remember, just how close we were to resolving this issue in 
the last Congress, when the conference report on S. 349 was killed by a 
last-minute filibuster. At that time, the opponents of the conference 
report raised a number of substantive concerns relating to the lobbying 
reform portion of the bill, which we now have successfully addressed in 
separate legislation. However, the opponents of the bill at that time 
stated strongly and repeatedly that they had no objection whatever to 
the gift provisions in the bill. Those are the same gift provisions 
that come before us today.
  As a matter of fact, the majority leader, Senator Dole, stated that 
he supported the gift ban provision. ``No lobbyist lunches, no 
entertainment, no travel, no contribution to the defense funds, no 
fruit basket, no nothing. That is fine with this Senator, and I doubt 
many Senators partake in that in any event,'' the majority leader said. 
And other Senators made similar statements of their commitment to the 
quick enactment of strong gift rules.
  On October 6 of last year 38 Republican Senators cosponsored a 
resolution, Senate Resolution 274, to adopt a new tough gift rule 
included in the conference report that I referred to on S. 349.
  The bill before us today contains these same rules changes that the 
vast majority of us voted for just a year ago in May 1994, and said 
that we still support it last October.
  So now we are going to be put to the test. If we really mean what we 
said last May and again last October, did we mean it when we said we 
wanted to put an end to the unlimited meals and tickets and 
recreational travel, or is it going to be business as usual in this 
town?
  The issue here is whether we can even go out to dinner with 
lobbyists. The question is who is paying? Who is paying for the theater 
tickets? Who is paying for the tickets to ski slopes?
  This issue and related issues have been thoroughly debated over the 
last few years. It came close last year, and we are coming close again 
this year. This issue is not going to go away until we do the right 
thing. The issue will not go away until we enact new, tough gift rules. 
The issue will not go away until the gifts go away.
  We do not need these gifts. We addressed this bill in the spirit in 
which we ran for office. We are going to do what the public wants us to 
do, and that is to get this issue behind us once and for all with 
strong, new gift reform.
  Mr. President, later on this afternoon I expect that an amendment is 
going to be offered in the form of a substitute. This substitute will 
bring us even closer to the executive branch rule on gifts. That rule 
is pretty simple rule--no gifts over $20 and few aggregate gifts even 
under $20 so that you cannot accept anything over $50 total from one 
source in 1 year. That is the executive branch rule. It has worked. It 
is simple. It is understandable. And that is what will be in the 
substitute. It is going to be a simpler approach than is in the 
underlying bill because the substitute will not make a distinction 
between whether or not a gift, food, whatever is received here or back 
home. The underlying bill made that distinction because it took a 
slightly different approach on the basic issue of what gifts are 
acceptable.
  But the substitute which will be offered makes no distinction between 
whether the gift comes from lobbyists or nonlobbyists. It is a $20 rule 
the way it is in the executive branch.
  So you do not need those kind of distinctions because of the 
simplicity of the rule, and the fact that it has 

[[Page S 10793]]
worked in the executive branch. And it is an effort to pattern our 
rules more closely to the executive branch rule, and to make it simpler 
so that we do not have distinctions as to whether or not the person 
giving the gift has been registered, which requires them to keep track 
of everybody who is registered on a computer as a professional paid 
lobbyist.
  It does not make the distinction between whether or not the gift is 
here or back home. That is the distinction which is difficult for many 
people in different States. Those distinctions are not in this 
amendment which will be offered in the form of a substitute. Instead, 
this is a simple, clear underlying executive branch approach--no gift 
under $20; gifts under $20 are aggregated. They count so that you 
cannot take more than $50 in any one year. That is what the executive 
branch does.
  Obviously, with the exceptions that we have in here for close 
personal friends, for doughnuts, coffee, mementos, caps, hats and the 
little things which we get of nominal value, those continue. They are 
in the underlying bill. The substitute will not touch those exceptions. 
We have lots of exceptions in the current rules. It is not anything 
novel to have 15 or 20 exceptions to the general rule because that is 
what we have in the current rules to take care of getting a pen from 
somebody. If you go to a VFW hall and somebody gives you a pen, that is 
acceptable under the current rule. That is acceptable under the 
underlying bill. That continues to be acceptable under the substitute. 
Those exceptions that are set forth in this underlying bill which has 
been pending before us for a long time and were before us last year 
continue in the substitute.
  I have worked to help craft that amendment in the form of a 
substitute. And I support it. I think it is strong, tough gift reform. 
It has some advantages in terms of being simpler and more 
understandable with fewer difficulties in terms of administration 
because it does not require the maintenance of the record on the 
thousands of registered lobbyists that hopefully will register under 
our new lobbying registration law.
  Again, it eliminates that distinction which is difficult for many 
depending on what State they live in to make the differential between 
receiving something back home and receiving something in the adjacent 
State.
  Let me close by repeating some portions of editorials which 
succinctly state the problem that we face and hopefully the solution 
which we are going to achieve this afternoon or tomorrow.
  From the Detroit Free Press of May 13:

       We do not believe that most Members of Congress are 
     inherently corrupt or readily corruptible, but the role of 
     special interests in Washington has become so troubling that 
     Congress simply must set higher standards. It will be a slow 
     process. But the gift ban is an important step towards 
     getting Congress' house in order.

  Mr. President, I am going to conclude at this point by simply 
reiterating one point which I think is the central truth of the 
substitute amendment which is going to be adopted. It basically adopts 
the approach used in the executive branch. They have lived with it. It 
works. I think we can live with it. And after we do, and after we get 
used to it, I think we are all going to feel that not only are we 
better off but that this institution will reclaim some of the support 
which has been lost in the public.
  Gifts are not the only reason that we have lost some of that public 
support. There are a number of reasons for it. But this is one of the 
number of steps which we can take in order to increase public 
confidence in this institution which we have all sworn to uphold.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on Monday of this week, the Senate 
unanimously voted to enact strict lobbying reforms. That vote signaled 
the intent of this body to listen carefully to the concerns of the 
American people. Today we have an opportunity to act on another reform 
measure--the gift ban.
  This bill, which was introduced by Senators Levin, Cohen, and 
Wellstone, seeks to prohibit Members and staff from receiving gifts. 
Simply, Members and staff will not have the opportunity to accept 
meals, privately financed trips, contributions to legal defense funds, 
or any other gifts from lobbyists. That does not seem like an 
unreasonable request to me. The American public has called for an end 
to business as usual in Washington, and this is a big step on the road 
to reform.
  In the last Congress, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass a 
virtually identical gift ban bill. Unfortunately, it was killed by a 
filibuster. But the need to adopt these reform measures has not 
diminished. There is strong support from the public. There is strong 
support from the Congress. And there is an unquestionable need to take 
this action.
  Mr. President, this debate is more than banning gifts--which clearly 
is long overdue. It is about restoring the faith of the American public 
in the political process. We need to remember that we are here as 
representatives of our constituents. That we were elected to work for 
the interests of our neighbors, not receive gifts from special 
interests. We must put ourselves in the shoes of our neighbors. Would 
they be asked out for free lunches? Would they be offered all expense 
paid trips to speak? When we can look our neighbors in the eye, and 
know that we do not have special privileges, then we are on the correct 
path to reform.
  The time has come to pass this long overdue measure. We must have 
real reform to help preserve the integrity of the process. We must have 
real reform to help restore the faith of the American people.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the gift 
reform bill.
  Mr. LOTT. 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. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will offer as an 
amendment the measures which were adopted earlier this week in the 
lobbying reform bill. Those lobby reform amendments dealt with 
loopholes in our disclosure.
  Currently, there are a number of loopholes in our disclosure 
procedure. Two of them were plugged by amendments to the lobbying 
reform bill, and it is my intention to offer those two amendments as 
rules changes for the Senate. They are pretty straightforward.
  One is to change reporting categories. Right now reporting categories 
cap out at $1 million, so an asset that might be worth $50 or $100 
million is reported as simply being worth over $1 million. My rule 
change would simply allow for a more complete disclosure of the asset 
value by creating some new categories: $1 million to $5 million, $5 
million to $10 million, $10 million to $25 million, $25 million to $50 
million, and assets above $50 million. There is no magic in those 
numbers. They are purely arbitrary. They are simply meant to give a 
little more accurate disclosure in terms of the asset value.
  The second amendment will be combined with the first and will deal 
with the loophole of the qualified blind trust. Currently, the law and 
the rules in effect allow Members who have a qualified blind trust to 
be advised of the net cash value of that blind trust but do not require 
disclosure of that value. The rule change simply indicates that in the 
event the trust instrument provides for the beneficiary or Member to be 
advised of the value they have in a qualified blind trust, then that 
has to be reported.
  These are two important changes because they will give a much more 
complete picture, and, frankly, they will apply the same rules to 
people who are not wealthy enough to afford a blind trust or a separate 
trustee; it will apply the same disclosure practices to people who can 
afford an independent trustee and those Members who are not wealthy 
enough to have an independent trustee and qualified blind trust--simple 
equity, simple fairness in applying the same rules to all Members of 
this Chamber, whether wealthy or not wealthy.
  It seems to me, while we are all hopeful of lobbying reform, adding 
these changes to the Senate rules will assure these important reforms 
are adopted regardless of what happens to the lobbying reform bill. 

[[Page S 10794]]

  I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that I might proceed as if in 
morning business for the next 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________