[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 123 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10796-S10810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CONGRESSIONAL GIFT REFORM ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of S. 1061, and that Senator McCain be recognized 
to offer his substitute amendment, and there be 1 hour for debate on 
the substitute to be equally divided in the usual form, and it be 
subject to the following first-degree amendments, with no second-degree 
amendments in order and no amendments to the language proposed to be 
stricken, with all first-degree amendments limited to 1 hour to be 
equally divided in the usual form if that much time is needed: A Byrd 
amendment, sense of the Senate on the judiciary; a Rockefeller 
amendment with regard to gift rules; a Brown amendment regarding blind 
trust and reporting; one amendment on spouses by Senator Dole or his 
designee; one amendment on charitable trips by Senator Dole or his 
designee; one amendment on definition of friendship for Senator Dole or 
his designee; one amendment on the limit involved in the gift rule 
issue by Senator Dole or his designee; one amendment on events by 
Senator Dole or his designee; one amendment by Senator Wellstone 
regarding gift rules limits; and one amendment from Senator Dole 
regarding gift rules.
  I further ask that following the disposition of the above listed 
amendments, there be 1 hour equally divided for debate only, the Senate 
proceed to vote on the substitute, as amended, if amended, to be 
followed by third reading, if applicable, and passage of the gift rule 
measure, all without intervening action or debate except as provided 
for in the unanimous-consent agreement.
  Mr. President, I would like to say this has been discussed by all the 
various parties that have been involved in this effort. It has been 
carefully reviewed by the leadership on the Democratic side of the 
aisle, and I believe that this is an agreement that we can go with and 
get this job done.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object. I tried to follow him very closely. At the third line from 
the bottom of the unanimous-consent agreement, ``* * * disposition of 
the above listed amendments, the Senate proceed''----
  Mr. LOTT. We added at that point, ``there be 1 hour equally divided 
for debate only.''
  Mr. FORD. There be 1 hour for debate equally divided between the two 
leaders. That is it.
  Mr. LOTT. That is right.
  Mr. FORD. OK. I just wanted to be sure--we worked so hard on this--
that the language was correct. We penciled in a couple things here.
  We have no objection and look forward to the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I might say for the information of all 
Members now that we have this unanimous-consent agreement, we are ready 
to go ahead with the debate. I see Senator McCain is ready. We hope to 
continue to work on some of these amendments and hopefully all of them 
will not be necessary. We will try to dispose of them as expeditiously 
as we can.
  With regard to what time will be used tonight and whether or not 
there will be votes tonight, we do not have any order on that at this 
time. We just need to proceed, and as soon as an agreement is reached 
on that, we will certainly let the Members know immediately.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1872

              (Purpose: To provide for Senate gift reform)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] for himself, Mr. 
     Levin, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Kyl, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Grams, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1872.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate on the amendment will be limited to 1 
hour equally divided.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, the agreement that we have crafted after many, many 
hours of discussion and debate is one that is very emotional. I do not 
know of an issue that arouses more emotion in the Members than one that 
has to do with modification of the lifestyle of the Members of the 
Senate.
  I believe there is a recognition on the part of all in this body that 
we are expected to live as all of the citizens in 

[[Page S 10797]]
this country live. At the same time, there is also an appreciation that 
there are certain aspects of our lives as Senators that are different.
  This amendment, the substitute, this compromise, has been carefully 
crafted to respond to the American people who expect us to live as they 
do and at the same time I hope takes into account in very small ways 
the fact that many times our spouses are with us, there are many times 
where we are at an event where someone hands us something, there are 
times when we are given out of appreciation a plaque or something of 
that nature which is worth a significant amount of money. But at the 
same time the American people do not want us to be going out and being 
wined and dined by people who have an interest in legislation before 
us.
  This compromise would not be possible without the efforts of people 
who represent a broad spectrum of opinion on this issue. Senator Levin 
and Senator Cohen have certainly been the leaders on this issue. They 
have worked on this issue for years and have brought forward I think a 
piece of legislation that is very important. My friends, Senator 
Wellstone and Senator Feingold, have labored hard on this issue and 
they bring to this body in my view a desire to make sure that the 
American people look on our work and our activities as those of which 
they can approve.
  Senator Lautenberg and Senator Kyl have also been very helpful.
  I would like to say a special word about my friend from Kentucky, 
Senator McConnell, who has tried very hard and I think largely 
succeeded in representing the views of the majority of the Republican 
Conference. Senator McConnell also has been one who has sat in on 
hundreds of hours of meetings and who has in many ways contributed 
enormously to this final product. I appreciate his efforts. Not many 
people are willing to do the work that Senator McConnell has done for 
the rest of the Members on this side of the aisle.
  So there were many as short a time ago as a week who believed we 
could not come up with a broad agreement. There are also, as in the 
unanimous-consent agreement, items that are in disagreement and on 
which votes will be taken.
  It is not clear, depending on the outcome of those amendments, 
whether final passage would be approved of or not, depending on the 
result of those amendments. My friend, Senator Wellstone, and Senator 
Feingold have very strongly held views. They have articulated them on 
this floor and in many other forums throughout America.
  Anyway, Mr. President, I am proud of what we have done. I hope that 
it emerges largely intact after we finish the amending process.
  Now I would like to give a brief description of the compromise and 
then move on as rapidly as possible to the amending process.
  Mr. President, I want to clarify the record and explain exactly what 
this amendment does and what it does not. It amends the rules of the 
Senate as follows: It mandates that the Senate, as mandated by the 
Constitution, have sole discretion to enforce its own rules.
  It prohibits Members, officers and employees of Congress from 
accepting any gift over $20 in value. The total value of all gifts 
received annually from any one source shall not exceed $50.
  Now I ask my colleagues, if there is one message from this entire 
compromise as I lay it out, fundamentally it is the same rules under 
which the executive branch has had to function for nearly 20 years. I 
want to repeat. The executive branch basically functions under almost 
these same rules, and they have been able to do it--obviously with some 
pain and difficulty. But I believe that if they are able to do that, we 
are, too. The bill applies equally to lobbyists and nonlobbyists and 
in-State as well as out-of-State.
  Gifts are defined as any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, 
hospitality, loan, forbearance, meal or food, or any item of monetary 
value.
  A gift to a spouse or dependent is considered a gift to the Member or 
employee if there is reason to believe that the gift was given because 
of the official position of the Member or employee.
  However, the bill states that when a Member and his or her family is 
accepting a meal or food from a nonfriend, that only the meal of the 
Member counts toward the gift limits. The Senate correctly cannot 
control the lives of our family members, and this amendment continues 
that tradition.
  The bill exempts:
  Meals and food for family members.
  Gifts to a Member from a family member.
  Gifts from a personal friend.
  Gifts of personal hospitality not from a lobbyist.
  All lawful campaign and political contributions.
  Anything for which the Member pays market value.
  Pension and other benefits provided by a former employer.
  Contributions to legal defense funds, except by lobbyists.
  Informational materials, including books, articles, magazines, or 
videotapes; competitive awards or prizes; honorary degrees; 
commemorative plaques and trophies and any item intended solely for 
presentation; and official training.
  Gifts from another Member, officer, or employee.
  Specific exemptions for permissible travel and charitable events/
dinners as follows:
  Travel, food, and lodging where such benefits are customarily 
available to noncongressional employees and totally unrelated to the 
individual's official duties.
  Activities provided by a political organization in connection with a 
political fund-raiser or campaign event.
  Food, meals, and attendance, but not travel or lodging, directly 
associated with the charity event in which the Member is substantially 
participating. I want to repeat that. Food, meals and attendance, but 
not travel or lodging, directly associated with a charity event in 
which the Member is substantially participating.
  Food, meals and attendance at widely attended conferences and forums 
in which the Member or employee participates and is appropriate to 
official duties.
  Reimbursement for travel to a speaking engagement, fact-finding trip 
deemed to be within the purview of official business. Substantially 
recreational activities are not official business. I repeat, 
substantially recreational activities are not official business.
  Exempts transportation, lodging, and related expenses for necessary, 
official travel, with the following qualifications:
  Travel period shall not exceed 3 days within the United States or 7 
days outside the United States unless approved by the Ethics Committee.
  Expenses must be reasonable.
  And recreation or entertainment cannot be paid for if it is not 
provided to all attendees regardless of congressional employment.
  This substitute requires travel and expenses for official travel that 
is reimbursed by a noncongressional entity be publicly disclosed.
  The substitute also contains certain specific prohibitions on 
lobbyists:
  Contributions to legal defense funds of Members made by lobbyists are 
banned. All other contributions to legal defense funds are completely 
allowable.
  Contributions to an entity or foundation controlled by or 
administered by a Member, officer or employee of Congress or their 
family members are banned.
  And contributions by lobbyists for retreats are banned.
  The substitute also requires Members, officers, and employees of 
Congress to report on donations given in lieu of honoraria to a charity 
designated by the Member, officer, or employee.
  Lastly, the resolution states that the provisions of the bill shall 
be solely enforced by the Senate Ethics Committee. The committee is 
also expressly authorized to issue such guidelines as necessary for the 
implementation of this rule.
  Mr. President, some have mischaracterized this amendment stating that 
it will allow the Department of Justice to constantly bring charges 
against Members of Congress if a Member ate one doughnut over the $20 
limit. This is simply not true. Again, I want to note the bill states:

       All the provisions of this Act shall be solely enforced by 
     the Senate Ethics Committee.


[[Page S 10798]]

  Mr. President, except for some minor exceptions, this proposal is 
primarily the rules under which the executive branch operates. And for 
all the cries that we cannot live under these rules, the staff of the 
executive branch has and does. And I have yet to see a request from the 
President or the White House Chief of Staff or a Cabinet Secretary 
asking that the Congress liberalize their gift rules.
  I have also heard Members talk about the fact that you cannot compare 
the legislative and executive branches because the Members of Congress 
receive so many more gifts. I am sure we do. But I believe we receive 
countless more gifts not because of the nature of the office, but 
because we have liberal gift rules and the executive branch has 
stringent rules.
  Mr. President, this bill in no way should be interpreted as a 
condemnation of Members of this Senate. I do not believe that gifts and 
meals have in any way unduly influenced Senators or their staff. But 
there is a perception held by the public that we receive too many gifts 
and that the practice should be reformed. And I believe this compromise 
before the Senate will accomplish that reform.
  Let me also point out that the rules change we are proposing is not 
so radical as to prevent the Senate from doing its business. Senators 
should travel around their States and meet their constituents. If a 
constituent is having a barbecue, it is appropriate for a Senator to 
have a hot dog or a hamburger.
  But we do not need tickets to lavish balls to do our jobs. We do not 
need $100 gift baskets to do our jobs. And we do not need unlimited, 
expensive free meals to do our job.
  The proposal will allow staff and Members to accept gifts that cost 
no more than $20. I believe this is a realistic limit.
  Additionally, the bill allows Members to accept any item that is 
commemorative in nature such as a trophy or plaque or any item intended 
solely for presentation. Therefore, a model ship or commemorative 
football jersey that might be presented to a Member would be allowed.
  The resolution also allows Members to attend charity dinners and have 
the cost of the dinner and the ticket paid for by the event's sponsor. 
It would be ridiculous to have a Member speak at a charity dinner and 
be forced to refuse to eat. This would allow the Member to participate 
in the event and eat the meal.
  Mr. President, I want to note that in Arizona, the Governor and the 
legislature is limited to acceptance of gifts that cost $10 or less. To 
be sure, Arizona legislators are lobbied. They need to meet their 
constituents. The Governor has to go to events and meet Arizonans. And 
they all live, function, and do their job under more stringent rules 
than we are proposing here today.
  Some say we need gifts such as expensive lobbyist lunches so that we 
may be more informed on the issues. On behalf of the State legislators 
in Arizona, I will attest that they do an exemplary job and are 
extremely informed and do it with a gift ban in place.
  Many of my colleagues served in State legislatures before they came 
here. They know that the work that those legislators do is just as 
difficult as the work we do. If they can live with tight gift rules, if 
the executive branch of the Federal Government can live with tight gift 
rules, then so can we.
  Mr. President, there is simply no legitimate reason not to reform the 
Senate's gift rules. As I have noted, the proposal we have offered both 
reforms our gift rules while establishing a new set of rules that will 
allow us to fully function in our jobs. It is a reasonable, bipartisan 
approach to this issue.
  Mr. President, it is not very often that I express openly my 
appreciation to members of the staff. Perhaps that is an oversight on 
my part from time to time. But I would like to acknowledge the efforts 
of Peter Levine, Linda Gustitus, Andy Kutler, Colin McGinnis, Suzanne 
Martinez, Robin Cleveland, Kyle McSlarrow, Melissa Patack, and Mark 
Buse, who have literally labored long and hard for a long period of 
time on this very important issue.
  Mr. President, again, I want to extend my deep appreciation to so 
many people who have taken part in this effort. No one will receive a 
sufficient amount of credit, and no one can overstate the difficulty 
and the emotions surrounding an issue such as this.
  I am very pleased that we are able to come to a general agreement, 
and we will, hopefully within some hours of debate and voting, be able 
to come to a conclusion of this very difficult issue.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself 10 seconds. If the Senator from Colorado 
is agreeable, I would like to allow the Senator from Wisconsin to make 
opening remarks before we go into the amendments; is that agreeable 
with the Senator from Colorado?
  Mr. BROWN. Sure.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield whatever time the Senator from 
Wisconsin may use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. Let me 
also now extend my appreciation as well to the staff of all the 
Senators who have put in an enormous amount of time on this over the 
last year and a half.
  I want to take a couple moments to single out and congratulate the 
senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, for what I see is a 
tremendous effort in bridging the differences of those of us on both 
sides of the aisle who do favor strong and meaningful gift reform 
legislation. I think it has been really an extraordinary display of 
bipartisan leadership. I am grateful for it and hope it will bear fruit 
in the next few hours.
  I am pleased this legislation has the support of not only my good 
friend from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Levin from 
Michigan and Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey, but also the support 
of several Members on the other side, including some of the freshman 
Members who clearly came to town in 1994, just as many of us did in 
1992, with a mandate to clean up business as usual and put an end to 
the outrageous practice of providing literally thousands of free gifts 
and meals and trips to Members of Congress.
  As the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, this compromise proposal 
really makes only a few changes to the original Levin-Wellstone 
legislation, and he has outlined it well. But let me just reiterate a 
couple of the points.
  First, Members can no longer accept a gift, whether it is a meal, 
concert tickets or gift certificate, that is valued at more than $20. 
Gifts valued below this amount will be aggregated so that Members 
cannot accept more than $50 from any one source in a calendar year. 
This is patterned almost word for word after the rule that has been 
applied for many years to the executive branch of our Government.
  There was a concern expressed that the notion of aggregation, having 
this overall limit, would mean that Senators might be forced to keep 
overly detailed or meticulous records of virtually every gift they 
receive, whether it is a $15 meal or a hot dog or baseball cap. I 
question how hard that is. I think it is better just to say no, but I 
think we have solved this problem, to the extent it exists, by 
requiring Senators to make a good-faith effort to comply with the 
provisions of the bill.
  This also solves the ``gotcha'' problem. That is, if a Senator 
accidentally crosses over the $50 threshold or somehow accidentally 
undervalues a gift by a dollar or two, that Senator would not be in 
strict violation of the new Senate rules.
  By relying on the good faith of Senators to comply with this new 
rule, we have addressed the concerns of those who may object to strict 
recordkeeping requirements and the concerns also of those who believe 
we should do all we can to ensure that Senators do not accept from now 
on more than $50 in gifts from any one source in a calendar year.
  In addition, the new compromise will make it clear that if a Member 
elects to attend a charitable event and pays all the travel and lodging 
expenses out of his or her own pocket, the Member will be able to 
participate in a meal for free as part of that charitable event.
  I do not think it is necessary, but, obviously, why would anyone pay 
for all the travel and lodging in order to simply get a free meal? I 
think it will 

[[Page S 10799]]
certainly take care of that. We believe it was allowed under our 
original legislation, but we have clarified it to take care of concerns 
of some of the Members. It takes care of the lion's share of this 
issue.
  The bipartisan coalition that has thrown its support behind the 
proposal takes the view that although they favor the tough gift 
limitations consistent with the Levin-Wellstone legislation, they 
believe that the Senate will be better served by a gift rule applied 
simply and equally, whether you are talking about lobbyists or 
nonlobbyists, or whether you are talking about something that happens 
in Washington or in a Senator's home State.
  We have met this concern with this compromise. I tend to agree with 
my colleagues on the importance of simplicity in terms of such a rule. 
I came from a legislative body in the State of Wisconsin that 
practically does not allow anything of value from anyone, not even a 
cup of coffee. That simple but strict rule has been enormously 
successful for over 20 years and has not led to the bureaucratic 
complications and starving-legislator scenarios that a few people have 
suggested could come out of reform.
  I adopted a zero-tolerance policy in my office. We simply keep a log 
of the gifts the office receives, and it has been contained--there are 
over 1,000 entries--in this red binder in the last 2\1/2\ years. Most 
of the items we either donate to charity or to the State of Wisconsin. 
Other items we discard.
  As I said, the rule has been incredibly successful for one simple 
reason: It is easy to understand. I certainly understand where my 
colleagues on the other side are coming from on this issue. I believe 
we have made progress on this compromise in terms of getting a 
straightforward and easy-to-understand gift rule.
  Many of those involved in this bipartisan compromise believe the 
Senate should have the same gift rules as the executive branch. Again, 
this argument has a lot of appeal to it. After all, a Cabinet Secretary 
certainly receives as many gifts and is invited to as many speaking 
engagements as a Member of Congress. If the Cabinet Secretary can live 
under the $20 and $50 thresholds, I do not see why a Member of Congress 
cannot do the same.
  Again, many of the parties involved in these negotiations raised a 
valid concern, and we have appropriately addressed that concern in this 
compromise.
  But Senators should know one thing about the compromise. Though it 
does allow some gifts from the lobbying community that the underlying 
legislation did not allow, the bipartisan substitute we put forth is a 
significant departure from current Senate rules and will have a 
profound and historic impact on how this body interacts with the 
lobbying community.
  It will change the way business is conducted in Washington in a 
significant way. The $20 de minimis rule may not be what I prefer. I 
made it clear that I think the zero Wisconsin rule is the best reform, 
and I hope we move to it one of these days. But this substitute, 
offered by the Senator from Arizona and others, will end the 
possibility of one special interest group putting forward steak dinners 
and fine wine and cart loads of gifts that can now be showered on 
people elected to the Senate.
  That is a very important step forward, and I am pleased to join in 
supporting this proposal. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield some 
time to the Senator from Minnesota?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to. Who controls time and how much is 
left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes controlled by the Senator 
from Michigan and 7 minutes and 55 seconds remaining for the Senator 
from Arizona.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield. How much time does the Senator 
from Minnesota want?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time does the Senator have?
  Mr. LEVIN. Thirty minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this gift ban reform has been perhaps, 
at least in my 4\1/2\ years here, one of the most debated and 
scrutinized pieces of legislation. I will be very brief. Five minutes 
will do.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator from Michigan have 30 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes reserved in opposition 
that has not been used, and there are 7 minutes and 55 seconds 
remaining allocated to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Michigan control the time in opposition.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I may object, since I 
am a cosponsor of the amendment that is being offered, the substitute, 
I do not feel that I am in a position to yield time in opposition.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me retract my unanimous-consent 
request and yield my 7 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota, and 
perhaps we can hash out what happens with the other 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 7 
minutes and 55 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona, but I 
want him to know he will have 6 minutes. I am going to use 1 minute 
because I would like for him to do the summation.
  I was worried, because for a moment, I thought I would have to, in 
the spirit of honesty, step forward and say I am not speaking in 
opposition to it. I have been working on this for a long time.
  Mr. President, I just want to say, during my time in the Senate, I 
have found the discussion that we have had with the Senator from 
Arizona to be just really interesting. As a political scientist, that 
is the way I would put it, very interesting.
  I think we have come together with a really good bipartisan reform 
effort. I think that all of us feel very good about it. As the Senator 
from Wisconsin said, it is significant, and it is a very significant 
message to people in the country that we are going to change the way in 
which we conduct business here. And so I wait for the debate on the 
amendments, and I think we will have some very spirited debate.
  I feel very good about this piece of legislation now on the floor of 
the Senate. I thank the Senator from Arizona, and certainly the Senator 
from Michigan, the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator from New Jersey, 
and the Senator from Maine. We have a lot of people that have worked 
hard on this. I believe the Senate can do itself proud and support this 
strong reform initiative. I will wait for debate on the amendments 
before becoming more engaged in the discussion.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds. I thank Senator 
Wellstone, who has worked at this for a long, long time. We have a good 
relationship, and I appreciate his dedication to the cause.
  I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I wanted to take the floor this evening to 
offer my commendation to the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from 
Michigan, the Senator from Minnesota, the Senator from Wisconsin, and 
others who have worked for many days trying to arrive at a consensus 
which would enjoy bipartisan support.
  This is not a subject matter which has been easy to deal with. There 
are Members who feel that the Senate is going too far, that the so-
called gifts that are given to Members of the Senate are insignificant 
in nature. Many Members feel that gifts do not have any sort of impact 
or influence upon their independent judgment.
  I believe that to be the case. The problem has always been the 
perception on the part of the American people. We know that we do not 
enjoy a high level of confidence. Perhaps it has been our fate as 
politicians to suffer those low ratings. I cannot recall, historically, 
when those who are public officials have ever enjoyed long, sustained 
periods of public approval. I think there have been, historically, 
peaks, but mostly valleys. Peaks have occurred when there have been 
moments of great debate.
  I can recall during the time of the impeachment proceedings, well 
back into the 1970's, when I think people were impressed with the 
quality of the debate that took place during that 

[[Page S 10800]]
very trying time. Another such moment was during the debates on the 
Persian Gulf war here in the U.S. Senate when the American people who 
were seriously divided over the issue looked upon us. I think they were 
quite impressed with the quality of the debate on both sides of the 
issue. They felt that the democratic system truly was fulfilling its 
promise. Perhaps there have been a number of other moments when the 
public has looked upon the deliberations here in this body and in the 
other body and have come to the conclusion that we are measuring up to 
our responsibilities.
  The difficulty, of course, is that those peaks are usually followed 
by very deep valleys. It is from the depths of one of those valleys 
that we are trying to climb to achieve a level of public confidence.
  I am not persuaded that any individual thing that we do will 
ultimately sustain that public confidence. But I think we have an 
obligation to try to achieve it. In my own view, I think we will not 
arrive at the higher levels of confidence until such time as we deal 
with the major issues confronting this country. First and foremost, we 
must deal with balancing the budget, and do so in a way that does the 
least amount of injury to the most vulnerable citizens in our society. 
Another issue is determining which level of government, be it Federal, 
State or local, that should be involved in various issues that impact 
upon our citizenry. These, ultimately, are going to be the types of 
issues on which we will, hopefully, raise our level of respect in the 
community.
  But, in the meantime, I think this particular legislation is 
important because the perception is that the legislative process is 
being unduly influenced by individuals, groups, or lobbyists who have 
undue control over the outcome of our deliberations.
  I simply wanted to take the floor this evening to commend my 
colleagues for seeking to arrive at what we believe to be a fair 
resolution of the issue.
  As Senator McCain has indicated, his proposal, rather than the 
underlying Levin-Cohen-Wellstone proposal, adds a degree of, No. 1, 
uniformity, and No. 2, simplicity and clarity.
  I wanted to simply commend those who have been involved in the 
painstaking negotiations that have helped us arrive at this position.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that since all time has not 
been yet used on the substitute that I be allowed to speak for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1873

(Purpose: To amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to require Senators 
 and employees of the Senate to make a more detailed disclosure of the 
 value of certain assets under title I of the Ethics in Government Act 
                                of 1978)

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

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1873.

  Mr. BROWN. 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 in the amendment, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE IN THE SENATE OF THE VALUE OF 
                   CERTAIN ASSETS UNDER THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT 
                   ACT OF 1978.

       (a) Categories of Income.--Rule XXXIV of the Standing Rules 
     of the Senate is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``3. In addition to the requirements of paragraph 1, 
     Members, officers, and employees of the Senate shall include 
     in each report filed under paragraph 2 the following 
     additional information:
       ``(a) For purposes of section 102(a)(1)(B) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 additional categories of income as 
     follows:
       ``(1) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than $5,000,000, 
     or
       ``(2) greater than $5,000,000.
       ``(b) For purposes of section 102(d)(1) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 additional categories of income as 
     follows:
       ``(1) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than $5,000,000;
       ``(2) greater than $5,000,000 but not more than 
     $25,000,000;
       ``(3) greater than $25,000,000 but not more than 
     $50,000,000; and
       ``(4) greater than $50,000,000.
       ``(c) For purposes of this paragraph and section 102 of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978, additional categories with 
     amounts or values greater than $1,000,000 set forth in 
     section 102(a)(1)(B) and 102(d)(1) shall apply to the income, 
     assets, or liabilities of spouses and dependent children only 
     if the income, assets, or liabilities are held jointly with 
     the reporting individual. All other income, assets, or 
     liabilities of the spouse or dependent children required to 
     be reported under section 102 and this paragraph in an amount 
     or value greater than $1,000,000 shall be categorized only as 
     an amount or value greater than $1,000,000.''.
       (b) Blind Trust Assets.--
       (1) In general.--Rule XXXIV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``4. In addition to the requirements of paragraph 1, 
     Members, officers, and employees of the Senate shall include 
     in each report filed under paragraph 2 an additional 
     statement under section 102(a) of the Ethics in Government 
     Act of 1978 listing the category of the total cash value of 
     any interest of the reporting individual in a qualified blind 
     trust as provided in section 102(d)(1) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978, unless the trust instrument was 
     executed prior to July 24, 1995 and precludes the beneficiary 
     from receiving information on the total cash value of any 
     interest in the qualified blind trust.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to reports filed under title I of 
     the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 for calendar year 1996 
     and thereafter.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this amendment is precisely the same 
amendment that was considered and approved on the lobbying bill. What 
it does is, it incorporates two amendments that I had drafted and filed 
earlier on--one dealing with eliminating the loopholes on the 
disclosure provisions, and one eliminating the loophole on the blind 
trust.
  They are specifically this. One, in new categories to report the 
value of assets. As our rules stand now, assets may be valued at $10 
million, $50 million, or $100 million, but would only show up as being 
over $1 million. This adjusts the categories to allow a fuller 
disclosure.
  It includes an amendment on the disclosure of the value of a blind 
trust. Our rules now provide for a blind trust reporting the total cash 
value to the beneficiary, but do not provide for that to be reported on 
the disclosure forms. This changes that and would provide that if 
indeed the trust instrument provides for the total cash value to be 
reported to the beneficiary of the trust, that beneficiary member would 
end up reporting that. My understanding is that this has been cleared 
on both sides.
  I will yield the floor, Mr. President, and I will ask for a vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Republican 
and Democratic leader would like to dispose of more amendments tonight. 
I urge those under the unanimous-consent agreement to come over so that 
we can do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Brown 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1873) was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1872

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain amendment. I 
served in the U.S. House of Representatives on the Ethics Committee. In 
that capacity, I came to see situations develop, over time, which were 
very difficult to deal with, to understand why a Member would have 
gotten into trouble, to try to deal with the gray areas that sometimes 
attend the rules under which we try to do our business.
  It is one of the experiences which caused me to support the efforts 
of John McCain and others to try to bring this into a document, to 
codify it so 

[[Page S 10801]]
that Members would know what was appropriate and what was not--at least 
what we allowed and would not allow by our rules. That is why I think 
this is a very useful exercise.
  I want to compliment my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, for 
his efforts in this regard. I heard him give a speech one night about 
duty, honor, and country. It was the ``honor'' part that has motivated 
John McCain throughout his career, and it is what motivates all Members 
here tonight, to try to develop a code of conduct under which we cannot 
only operate free from allegations that undue influence has been 
brought to bear upon us, but to operate in a way that the American 
people accept as appropriate to the high office which they have 
entrusted to Members.
  In our Government, if the people do not have confidence in their 
representatives, the Government and the people are not well served, 
because the people, then, end up distrusting the very people they have 
asked to make decisions for them, to represent them. A democracy, I 
suggest, could not long exist in that situation.
  It is up to the Members to earn the public trust. To do that, we have 
to conduct ourselves in a way that is above reproach. That is what the 
stronger ethics rules would provide, to make it crystal clear that 
there is certain conduct that simply is not acceptable.
  Much of it focuses on the acceptance of gifts, because the public 
does not understand why, simply because we were elected to an office, 
that we are somehow entitled to receive gifts. These rules will not 
prohibit Members from enjoying friendship with those who are our 
friends, from having a meal with a friend. However, it will prevent 
Members from being feted with gifts which we all know are really 
designed to achieve one purpose, and that is for the people who have 
business with the Congress, to gain our ear.
  We are not talking about the kind of gifts that we know are given 
from the heart, when the 4-H kids come in and want to give Members a 
cup. We all accept that proudly. It would be horrible if we could not 
accept that which the kids are proffering. It means a lot to them, so 
it means a lot to the Members. That is not what we are talking about.
  When lobbyists invite Members someplace and want to treat Members to 
rounds of golf and those sort of things, even though we may justify it 
or rationalize it, the fact is, it is not good. We are not entitled to 
be feted in this fashion just because we were elected to public office. 
And it looks bad. Is it any wonder that the people lose confidence in 
Members?
  That is the kind of thing that these rules are designed to stop. Most 
Members realize in our hearts the difference between those things that 
we can accept and not have it affect what we do here in any way, on the 
one hand; yet, on the other hand, those kinds of things that are the 
subtle, little attempts to influence Members or do favors for Members 
just because of who we are, by people who want to influence our 
actions. We understand those differences.
  Therefore, we can make these rules work in a way that will make our 
constituents pleased with their representatives. That is what is behind 
this legislation.
  Again, I want to compliment all of those, both on the Republican side 
and on the Democratic side of the aisle, for their willingness to 
compromise.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to take 30 seconds to compliment 
Senator Mitch McConnell. He is chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee. 
Because of his strong leadership, we have been able to bring together 
all of the disparate elements, to come together to a compromise. 
Without that capability, I do not think we would have compromised.
  My hat is off to the chairman of the Ethics Committee, and to the 
sponsor of this bill, Senator McCain. I think tonight and tomorrow, Mr. 
President, the Senate is going to do the right thing in adopting the 
McCain amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on this 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 25 minutes 
remaining. That is all the time remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield whatever time is needed to the Senator from 
Kentucky, say, 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Mississippi, and I appreciate 
the kind words of the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl.
  Mr. President, I got interested in this issue before the Members 
tonight, as chairman of the Ethics Committee. The occupant of the chair 
is also a Member of that committee.
  We both know that we periodically get gift waivers, very legitimate 
gift waivers, under the current rule in which we operate. The whole 
question of what is an appropriate gift to a public official is a good 
deal more complicated than I expect many people out in America would 
conclude. Our line of work is really different in many ways from the 
executive branch.
  Everyone, I think, has their favorite gift story. My friend and 
colleague from Kentucky, I read in the paper, was talking about the 
country ham which is a traditional gift in Kentucky--not just to 
elected officials, but to lots of other people.
  I suppose if I had to pick, Mr. President, my favorite one, it would 
be R.C.'s and Moon-Pies. Every time I go to Liberty, KY, I have a 
friend down there who always kids me about being from the big city, 
Louisville. She is convinced that I did not know what R.C.'s and Moon-
Pies were. She did not know when she first started extending this great 
gift that I started my life in a very small town and knew exactly what 
R.C.'s and Moon-Pies were.
  In fact, what the people around the town square did was open up the 
Coke and pour in peanuts. Sort of a two-for--drink the Coke and eat the 
peanuts at the same time. I am familiar with R.C.'s and Moon-Pies.
  I cite this to illustrate the point that when you are in the public 
sector and you are dealing with constituents, it is quite common for 
people to offer you some gesture, sometimes as a joke, sometimes out of 
admiration. I expect some Members even get things periodically out of a 
sense of condemnation. But the dealing with our constituents and the 
exchange of gifts in a completely harmless way is very, very common in 
our line of work.
  What we have before the Senate is a substitute, artfully put together 
by a variety of different, disparate interests here in the Senate, that 
I think can successfully accommodate the natural social intercourse 
that goes on between elected officials and their constituents.
  I must say, Mr. President, just like when we began the lobbying 
debate earlier, who would ever have thought we would have managed to 
work out our differences and come together on such contentious matters. 
Of course, the lobbying proposal ended up passing 98-0 after many of 
its objectionable features were removed.
  What has happened here is a result of the efforts of Senator Lott, 
Senator McCain, and many Members on our side of the aisle, as we have 
worked on this legislation, refining it in trying to come together in 
the best legislative sense. I think that what is likely to happen here 
is that at the end of the process, after there are a few amendments, we 
will have a largely bipartisan gift reform bill that will pass the 
Senate. I think it will pass in the best sense by a bipartisan effort.
  Senator McCain has played a critical role in bringing the diverging 
sides together. I think it is safe to say without his effort, this 
largely would not have been possible.
  What we have been able to do here, it seems to me, Mr. President, is 
bring about meaningful gift rule reform without creating a morass of 
ethical trip wires over which not only our constituents would stumble, 
but ourselves. I think we have been able to avoid that.
  Let me just tick off, as others have, some of the principal points of 
the McCain substitute. This is a Senate rule, Mr. President, not a 
statute. I think that was a critically important step to take.
  The Senate has the responsibility for taking this action and of 
policing its own. This is a Senate rule, not a statute. There are no 
criminal penalties, Mr. President, for outsiders who trip over gift 
restrictions. We do not want to criminalize this area.
  One important improvement, Mr. President, actually an improvement 
over current law, in my view, is that spouses of Members are not 
covered.
 
[[Page S 10802]]

  That is an improvement over the current law. And the reason that is 
important is that many Members of the Senate are married to spouses who 
have very active careers, have their own friends, their own interaction 
with others. The current Senate rules under which we operate do, it 
seems to me, in several ways unnecessarily and improperly burden people 
who are not Members of the U.S. Senate. They are not elected officials. 
So the McCain substitute is actually an improvement, in my view, on 
current law in terms of recognizing the independent status and nature 
of the careers of the spouses of many of us who serve here in the 
Senate.
  The good-faith requirement in the McCain substitute promotes 
compliance while eliminating what could best be called the gotcha 
problem--the gotcha problem, with the kind of inadvertent violation of 
the gift limit.
  We are working toward a reasonable exemption for personal 
relationships, allowing Members to continue to have friends at home and 
in Washington. I want to elaborate on that just a minute, Mr. 
President. Just because we are Members of the Senate does not mean we 
cannot have friends like everybody else; regular friends who are not 
engaged in either gift giving or meal taking with us because they are 
trying to get us to do something on some bill. We are entitled to have 
friends, too. Some would argue it is a little harder in our line of 
work. We are stretched, running back and forth to our home States. But 
I think this bill recognizes we can have friends, too. Frankly, in this 
line of work, you need them.
  Finally, let me say an important concession made in the McCain 
substitute that I very much applaud is that it eliminates the 
distinction between lobbyist and nonlobbyist. I know it is great 
political theater to go around beating up on lobbyists. It has been a 
time-honored thing in American politics, and it has been particularly 
virulent of late. But the truth of the matter is, the Constitution 
allows every citizen of the United States to petition the Government. 
And there have been numerous Supreme Court decisions which have held 
that you do not waive your right to petition the Government because you 
are paid to do so. The Supreme Court wisely understood that a 
lobbyist--a term which has a sort of pejorative connotation--a lobbyist 
is, in fact, doing a job for a citizen somewhere else in America who 
does not have the time or the inclination to come up here and become an 
expert on matters that may affect his life. So that citizen or group of 
citizens, banding together, makes an entirely logical decision that 
they want to hire somebody to go represent their point of view before 
the Government; an entirely American thing to do. It is protected by 
the Constitution; recognized by the Supreme Court. And the McCain 
substitute eliminates the distinction between lobbyists and other 
citizens, for many purposes. I think that is an important step in the 
right direction. I think it is entirely consistent with what the 
Constitution seems to stipulate anyway. So I commend Senator McCain for 
that modification.
  So, Mr. President, let me say in summary, I think we have come a long 
way. There may well be a few amendments here. But, as chairman of the 
Ethics Committee, looking at this issue in terms of how it affected 
each of you and how frequently you are likely to be inadvertently 
brought before our committee, arguably in an unfair way, I think this 
proposal dramatically minimizes the potential that the career of some 
Member of the Senate is going to be ruined over some trivial exchange 
with friends and constituents.
  So I think this is a useful change. I think it does not go too far. 
And it places within the Ethics Committee, which is where it should be, 
the responsibility for making these kinds of rulings and 
interpretations. So, again, I thank Senator Lott, Senator McCain, and 
many others on the other side of the aisle who have been so critical 
and indispensable in getting us to where we are.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of our time to the 
distinguished Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi 
for being so gracious because I do, I think, take a slightly different 
view. But I thank him for giving me the time.
  First, Mr. President, I want to say I am pleased to be joining 
Senators McCain and Levin on this substitute amendment. I think it 
reflects a sincere desire to get the job done that we have the kind of 
bipartisan support that we are seeing. Because at a point in time not 
too long ago, Senator Wellstone and Senator Feingold, Senator Levin and 
I were working on gift legislation. I will discuss that in just a 
minute.
  So, Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining in this bipartisan 
compromise amendment that will substantially restrict the acceptance of 
gifts, meals, and travel by Members of Congress from lobbyists and 
others.
  Mr. President, on May 4, 1993, I introduced the original gift ban 
legislation, S. 885. At the time, frankly, it was considered a pretty 
radical idea.
  It is hard to remember how much things have changed in the last 2 
years. But until that bill was introduced, nobody around here was even 
thinking about banning gifts from lobbyists. At the time, there was a 
tremendous fight about a proposal by Senator Wellstone to merely 
disclose such gifts. And when I first raised the possibility of simply 
banning gifts altogether, a prominent public interest group dismissed 
the idea: Completely unrealistic, they said--it would never happen.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that we are about to prove that common 
wisdom wrong. And I think this substitute amendment may well be the 
vehicle to get it done.
  The amendment before us is remarkably similar to the very first gift 
ban bill I introduced in May 1993. Like that bill, this amendment 
essentially adopts the rules that already apply to the executive 
branch.
  Under those rules, no official may accept a gift worth more than $20. 
Nor may any official accept a total of more than $50 in gifts from any 
one source in any year.
  This amendment adopts these same limits for Members of Congress and 
their staffs. It also would ban all vacation trips, such as the charity 
golf, tennis, and ski trips that have been subject to so much adverse 
publicity.
  In many ways, this amendment is stronger than the gift ban in the 
underlying bill, S. 1061, which I also have cosponsored. For example, 
the underlying bill would allow the Rules Committee to set very high 
limits for meals and entertainment in a Member's home State. By 
contrast, the amendment subjects all meals and entertainment to the 
same $20 and $50 limits, regardless of where they are provided. That is 
an important improvement.
  The substitute amendment also strengthens the underlying bill by 
prohibiting lobbyists from providing personal hospitality to Members. 
That should help prevent abuses.
  Mr. President, I do not agree with every dot and comma of the 
substitute. For example, if it were up to me, I would simply ban all 
meals from lobbists, no matter how small. But I realize that to get a 
rule adopted, we have to attract broad support, and that is not easy. 
So, yes, we have had to make some compromises.
  But the bottom line is that this substitute puts us within striking 
distance of one of the most important political reforms in many years.
  I am very proud to have played an active role in this effort. And I 
want to thank the handful of Senators who have worked so hard on this, 
often at great personal cost. These include the three other Democrats 
who have been leaders on this for some time, Senators Levin, Wellstone, 
and Feingold. Each of them has made a major contribution, and I 
appreciate it.
  I also want to extend a special word of thanks to Senator McCain, who 
has played a critical role in recent days by pulling together proreform 
Members from both parties. I know that Senator McCain, like many of us, 
has taken some heat for his leadership, and I just want to thank him 
publicly for his commitment.
  As a result of the work of these and other Senators, Mr. President, 
we are 

[[Page S 10803]]
on the brink of a major reform that will really change the way we do 
business here in Washington. The vacation trips to the Caribbean are 
soon going to be a relic of the past. The lavish dinners at fancy 
restaurants are going by the wayside.
  Is it going to be as much fun to be a Senator, Mr. President? Perhaps 
not. But maybe this body will get just a little more respect in the 
process. And that is a tradeoff I will take any day.
  Mr. President, it appears that we are going to face some amendments 
that would weaken the proposal substantially. For example, we confront 
an amendment that would again allow the lobbyist-paid vacation trips 
that have caused so much controversy. I hope my colleagues will resist 
these efforts.
  But if we can hold this together, we will have produced a change of 
which we can all truly be proud. This is serious reform. It really will 
change the culture around here.
  In fact, I predict that if we succeed, it will not be long before 
people around here will look back at the current rules in amazement. 
New staffers hired a few years from now probably will be amazed that 
Members ever were allowed to accept special favors from lobbyists. It 
will seem archaic, perhaps even absurd.
  That will be a different Washington, Mr. President. A very different 
Washington.
  It also will be a better Washington.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment, and to 
place strict limits on gifts, meals, and travel from lobbyists and 
others.
  Let us change the way we do business in Washington. And let us do it 
now.
  Mr. President, when I introduced the gift bill a couple of years ago, 
I know that there was deduced a suggestion that perhaps I was talking 
about corruption in the body or something of that nature, or some 
impropriety. Mr. President, I want to correct that record because that 
was never the suggestion. I want to clear the record because it was an 
irritant over some period of time. Everybody knows I took a ski trip 
and enjoyed it, and some wondered why I had a change of mind. I will 
not get into that now. But it seems to me that the focus ought to be on 
charity and not on the recreation.
  So, Mr. President, I want to make sure that everybody clearly 
understands. I have never, never thought that anyone in this body was 
corrupt or that was acting improperly in terms of the law or even the 
rule. So I want to clear that up.
  My concern was and is, Mr. President, access. And when a meal is 
purchased by a lobbyist, it is not just the meal. It is access. And 
when one rides in the golf carts at a golf game sponsored by a 
lobbyist, it is not just a golf game. It is access. Or when one goes in 
a chair lift and rides 20 minutes up a mountain, it is not just a ride 
up to the mountaintop. It is access.
  Mr. President, we have had so many problems of late that we have lost 
public trust, and that makes it very difficult because it is almost 
impossible to govern. But also the association of special interests 
dominating this place is not a good image that we want to have. It is 
not one that I enjoy, I must tell, because implicit in public criticism 
is an accusation.
  So I support this reform measure so that we at least suggest to the 
public that no voice is more important than their voice, and no view is 
more important than their view. And if they even do not have the 
ability to knock on the door and say, ``I am here from Roanoke'' or ``I 
am here from Trenton, NJ,'' or what have you, that we have to let them 
know that we respect so much the value of their view, their judgment 
and continue to work to recover the trust and the faith of the American 
public.
  Mr. President, I think this is a good start. And for any of my 
colleagues who may have misinterpreted that which I intended when I 
wrote the first gift ban amendment 2 years ago, please let the record 
clearly reflect that I have nothing but respect--differs, albeit; that 
is the way we function around here--but respect for all of my 
colleagues, and never a suggestion that one is corrupt or improper.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to complete this 
debate and begin amendments now. Therefore, I yield the remainder of 
our time on this side. I believe we are ready to go with the amendment 
of Senator Murkowski.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, before the Senator from Alaska offers his 
amendment, let me say that I think we have come a long way here in the 
last couple of days. I want to congratulate all those who have been 
involved in the negotiations--Senator Lott, Senator McConnell, Senator 
McCain, Senator Levin, Senator Feingold, Senator Wellstone, Senator 
Lautenberg, Senator Breaux, and Senator Johnston. I probably am leaving 
out someone. But I just want to suggest that we have gone from what I 
think was a bad idea to a very good idea. But we are very, very close.
  I think the importance of what has happened is that we agreed on sort 
of the basic package--I hope we have--where both sides have given and 
taken some. And now what we are doing is offering just a few 
amendments. Where we cannot agree, we will jump the ball here and see 
who gets the tip. If you win, you win. If you lose, you lose. Then we 
go ahead and finish this bill, and get it behind us.
  We earlier promised--at least the leader did--that we would take up 
this bill on the 28th of July. It is now our hope that we can finish on 
the 28th of July both the lobbying bill and gift ban bill and have 
those behind us so that we can move on to other important legislation.
  I do not know of anybody in this body--I agree with the Senator from 
New Jersey. It is not a question of integrity, or honesty. It may be a 
perception. But the one thing that concerns many of us on both sides of 
the aisle is that we want to be certain we do not get somebody in 
trouble because if you are at some event you get a gift. And somebody 
may disagree on all of these things. We hope we have worked this out 
because, as I said, I received five birthday cakes last weak. I only 
ate one piece. I do not know what the value of the cakes was. They were 
all given in good faith. We had a good time. I shared it with a lot of 
people--things like that.
  I talked with Senator Campbell from Colorado. He is the only native 
American in this body. He said that, if you get a gift from his 
community, it would be an insult to return it.
  There are a lot of people. We have a lot of friends. If you do not 
have any friends, you do not have to worry about gifts. You do not need 
a gift ban. But a lot of us have a lot of friends. I think we all have 
a lot of friends. We want to make certain that we do not get anyone in 
trouble.
  We are on the right track. We are doing the right thing. I certainly 
support what has been done so far.
  We would like to complete action on this bill tomorrow. I am not in 
the position yet to announce votes. But what we are trying to do--I 
think some of my colleagues were scattered and I know some are at the 
White House. A number of colleagues are with the Korean war veterans 
attending a dinner at the White House tonight.
  As I said, we hope to announce fairly soon that we have an agreement, 
or that we can stack votes, and have the votes tomorrow morning. Then 
there would be no further votes tonight. We are not yet in a position 
to make that announcement. That is what we are working on.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would also like to thank not only the 
majority leader but the Senator from Mississippi, the distinguished 
whip, for all the effort that he and Senator Ford have gone to in 
expediting this process.


                    Amendment No. 1872, As Modified

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment, the substitute which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1872), as modified, is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO SENATE RULES.

       Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``1. (a)(1) No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate 
     shall knowingly accept a gift except in conformance with this 
     rule.
       ``(2) A Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift 
     (other than cash or cash equivalent) which the Member, 
     officer, or employee 

[[Page S 10804]]
     reasonably and in good faith believes to have a value of less than $20, 
     and a cumulative value from one source during a calendar year 
     of less than $50. No formal recordkeeping is required by this 
     paragraph, but a Member, officer, or employee shall make a 
     good faith effort to comply with this paragraph.
       ``(b)(1) For the purpose of this rule, the term `gift' 
     means any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, 
     hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary 
     value. The term includes gifts of services, training, 
     transportation, lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind, 
     by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement 
     after the expense has been incurred.
       ``(2)(A) A gift to the spouse or dependent of a Member, 
     officer, or employee (or a gift to any other individual based 
     on that individual's relationship with the Member, officer, 
     or employee) shall be considered a gift to the Member, 
     officer, or employee if it is given with the knowledge and 
     acquiescence of the Member, officer, or employee and the 
     Member, officer, or employee has reason to believe the gift 
     was given because of the official position of the Member, 
     officer, or employee.
       ``(B) If food or refreshment is provided at the same time 
     and place to both a Member, officer, or employee and the 
     spouse or dependent thereof, only the food or refreshment 
     provided to the Member, officer, or employee shall be treated 
     as a gift for purposes of this rule.
       ``(c) The restrictions in subparagraph (a) shall not apply 
     to the following:
       ``(1) Anything for which the Member, officer, or employee 
     pays the market value, or does not use and promptly returns 
     to the donor.
       ``(2) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully 
     made under that Act, or attendance at a fundraising event 
     sponsored by a political organization described in section 
     527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(3) A gift from a relative as described in section 107(2) 
     of title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Public 
     Law 95-521).
       ``(4)(A) Anything provided by an individual on the basis of 
     a personal friendship unless the Member, officer, or employee 
     has reason to believe that, under the circumstances, the gift 
     was provided because of the official position of the Member, 
     officer, or employee and not because of the personal 
     friendship.
       ``(B) In determining whether a gift is provided on the 
     basis of personal friendship, the Member, officer, or 
     employee shall consider the circumstances under which the 
     gift was offered such as:
       ``(i) The history of the relationship between the 
     individual giving the gift and the recipient of the gift, 
     including any previous exchange of gifts between such 
     individuals.
       ``(ii) Whether to the actual knowledge of the Member, 
     officer, or employee the individual who gave the gift 
     personally paid for the gift or sought a tax deduction or 
     business reimbursement for the gift.
       ``(iii) Whether to the actual knowledge of the Member, 
     officer, or employee the individual who gave the gift also at 
     the same time gave the same or similar gifts to other 
     Members, officers, or employees.
       ``(5) A contribution or other payment to a legal expense 
     fund established for the benefit of a Member, officer, or 
     employee, that is otherwise lawfully made, subject to the 
     disclosure requirements of Select Committee on Ethics, except 
     as provided in paragraph 3(c).
       ``(6) Any gift from another Member, officer, or employee of 
     the Senate or the House of Representatives.
       ``(7) Food, refreshments, lodging, and other benefits--
       ``(A) resulting from the outside business or employment 
     activities (or other outside activities that are not 
     connected to the duties of the Member, officer, or employee 
     as an officeholder) of the Member, officer, or employee, or 
     the spouse of the Member, officer, or employee, if such 
     benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of the 
     official position of the Member, officer, or employee and are 
     customarily provided to others in similar circumstances;
       ``(B) customarily provided by a prospective employer in 
     connection with bona fide employment discussions; or
       ``(C) provided by a political organization described in 
     section 527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in 
     connection with a fundraising or campaign event sponsored by 
     such an organization.
       ``(8) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued 
     participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan 
     maintained by a former employer.
       ``(9) Informational materials that are sent to the office 
     of the Member, officer, or employee in the form of books, 
     articles, periodicals, other written materials, audiotapes, 
     videotapes, or other forms of communication.
       ``(10) Awards or prizes which are given to competitors in 
     contests or events open to the public, including random 
     drawings.
       ``(11) Honorary degrees (and associated travel, food, 
     refreshments, and entertainment) and other bona fide, 
     nonmonetary awards presented in recognition of public service 
     (and associated food, refreshments, and entertainment 
     provided in the presentation of such degrees and awards).
       ``(12) Donations of products from the State that the Member 
     represents that are intended primarily for promotional 
     purposes, such as display or free distribution, and are of 
     minimal value to any individual recipient.
       ``(13) Training (including food and refreshments furnished 
     to all attendees as an integral part of the training) 
     provided to a Member, officer, or employee, if such training 
     is in the interest of the Senate.
       ``(14) Bequests, inheritances, and other transfers at 
     death.
       ``(15) Any item, the receipt of which is authorized by the 
     Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, the Mutual Educational and 
     Cultural Exchange Act, or any other statute.
       ``(16) Anything which is paid for by the Federal 
     Government, by a State or local government, or secured by the 
     Government under a Government contract.
       ``(17) A gift of personal hospitality (as defined in 
     section 109(14) of the Ethics in Government Act) of an 
     individual other than a registered lobbyist or agent of a 
     foreign principal.
       ``(18) Free attendance at a widely attended event permitted 
     pursuant to subparagraph (d).
       ``(19) Opportunities and benefits which are--
       ``(A) available to the public or to a class consisting of 
     all Federal employees, whether or not restricted on the basis 
     of geographic consideration;
       ``(B) offered to members of a group or class in which 
     membership is unrelated to congressional employment;
       ``(C) offered to members of an organization, such as an 
     employees' association or congressional credit union, in 
     which membership is related to congressional employment and 
     similar opportunities are available to large segments of the 
     public through organizations of similar size;
       ``(D) offered to any group or class that is not defined in 
     a manner that specifically discriminates among Government 
     employees on the basis of branch of Government or type of 
     responsibility, or on a basis that favors those of higher 
     rank or rate of pay;
       ``(E) in the form of loans from banks and other financial 
     institutions on terms generally available to the public; or
       ``(F) in the form of reduced membership or other fees for 
     participation in organization activities offered to all 
     Government employees by professional organizations if the 
     only restrictions on membership relate to professional 
     qualifications.
       ``(20) A plaque, trophy, or other item that is 
     substantially commemorative in nature and which is intended 
     solely for presentation.
       ``(21) Anything for which, in an unusual case, a waiver is 
     granted by the Select Committee on Ethics.
       ``(22) Food or refreshments of a nominal value offered 
     other than as a part of a meal.
       ``(23) an item of little intrinsic value such as a greeting 
     card, baseball cap, or a T-shirt.
       ``(d)(1) A Member, officer, or employee may accept an offer 
     of free attendance at a widely attended convention, 
     conference, symposium, forum, panel discussion, dinner, 
     viewing, reception, or similar event, provided by the sponsor 
     of the event, if--
       ``(A) the Member, officer, or employee participates in the 
     event as a speaker or a panel participant, by presenting 
     information related to Congress or matters before Congress, 
     or by performing a ceremonial function appropriate to the 
     Member's, officer's, or employee's official position; or
       ``(B) attendance at the event is appropriate to the 
     performance of the official duties or representative function 
     of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(2) A Member, officer, or employee who attends an event 
     described in clause (1) may accept a sponsor's unsolicited 
     offer of free attendance at the event for an accompanying 
     individual if others in attendance will generally be 
     similarly accompanied or if such attendance is appropriate to 
     assist in the representation of the Senate.
       ``(3) A Member, officer, or employee, or the spouse or 
     dependent thereof, may accept a sponsor's unsolicited offer 
     of free attendance at a charity event, except that 
     reimbursement for transportation and lodging may not be 
     accepted in connection with an event that does not meet the 
     standards provided in paragraph 2.
       ``(4) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `free 
     attendance' may include waiver of all or part of a conference 
     or other fee, the provision of local transportation, or the 
     provision of food, refreshments, entertainment, and 
     instructional materials furnished to all attendees as an 
     integral part of the event. The term does not include 
     entertainment collateral to the event, nor does it include 
     food or refreshments taken other than in a group setting with 
     all or substantially all other attendees.
       ``(e) No Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift the 
     value of which exceeds $250 on the basis of the personal 
     friendship exception in subparagraph (c)(4) unless the Select 
     Committee on Ethics issues a written determination that such 
     exception applies. No determination under this subparagraph 
     is required for gifts given on the basis of the family 
     relationship exception.
       ``(f) 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 or 
     destroyed.
       ``2. (a)(1) A reimbursement (including payment in kind) to 
     a Member, officer, or employee from an individual other than 
     a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal for 
     necessary transportation, lodging and related expenses for 
     travel to a meeting, speaking engagement, factfinding trip or 


[[Page S 10805]]
     similar event in connection with the duties of the Member, officer, or 
     employee as an officeholder shall be deemed to be a 
     reimbursement to the Senate and not a gift prohibited by this 
     rule, if the Member, officer, or employee--
       ``(A) in the case of an employee, receives advance 
     authorization, from the Member or officer under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works, to accept reimbursement, and
       ``(B) discloses the expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed 
     and the authorization to the Secretary of the Senate within 
     30 days after the travel is completed.
       ``(2) For purposes of clause (1), events, the activities of 
     which are substantially recreational in nature, shall not be 
     considered to be in connection with the duties of a Member, 
     officer, or employee as an officeholder.
       ``(b) Each advance authorization to accept reimbursement 
     shall be signed by the Member or officer under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works and shall include--
       ``(1) the name of the employee;
       ``(2) the name of the person who will make the 
     reimbursement;
       ``(3) the time, place, and purpose of the travel; and
       ``(4) a determination that the travel is in connection with 
     the duties of the employee as an officeholder and would not 
     create the appearance that the employee is using public 
     office for private gain.
       ``(c) Each disclosure made under subparagraph (a)(1) of 
     expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed shall be signed by 
     the Member or officer (in the case of travel by that Member 
     or officer) or by the Member or officer under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works (in the case of travel by an 
     employee) and shall include--
       ``(1) a good faith estimate of total transportation 
     expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(2) a good faith estimate of total lodging expenses 
     reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(3) a good faith estimate of total meal expenses 
     reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(4) a good faith estimate of the total of other expenses 
     reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(5) a determination that all such expenses are necessary 
     transportation, lodging, and related expenses as defined in 
     this paragraph; and
       ``(6) in the case of a reimbursement to a Member or 
     officer, a determination that the travel was in connection 
     with the duties of the Member or officer as an officeholder 
     and would not create the appearance that the Member or 
     officer is using public office for private gain.
       ``(d) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `necessary transportation, lodging, and related expenses'--
       ``(1) includes reasonable expenses that are necessary for 
     travel for a period not exceeding 3 days exclusive of travel 
     time within the United States or 7 days exclusive of travel 
     time outside of the United States unless approved in advance 
     by the Select Committee on Ethics;
       ``(2) is limited to reasonable expenditures for 
     transportation, lodging, conference fees and materials, and 
     food and refreshments, including reimbursement for necessary 
     transportation, whether or not such transportation occurs 
     within the periods described in clause (1);
       ``(3) does not include expenditures for recreational 
     activities, nor does it include entertainment other than that 
     provided to all attendees as an integral part of the event, 
     except for activities or entertainment otherwise permissible 
     under this rule; and
       ``(4) may include travel expenses incurred on behalf of 
     either the spouse or a child of the Member, officer, or 
     employee, subject to a determination signed by the Member or 
     officer (or in the case of an employee, the Member or officer 
     under whose direct supervision the employee works) that the 
     attendance of the spouse or child is appropriate to assist in 
     the representation of the Senate.
       ``(e) The Secretary of the Senate shall make available to 
     the public all advance authorizations and disclosures of 
     reimbursement filed pursuant to subparagraph (a) as soon as 
     possible after they are received.
       ``3. A gift prohibited by paragraph 1(a) includes the 
     following:
       ``(a) Anything provided by a registered lobbyist or an 
     agent of a foreign principal to an entity that is maintained 
     or controlled by a Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(b) A charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a 
     registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal on the 
     basis of a designation, recommendation, or other 
     specification of a Member, officer, or employee (not 
     including a mass mailing or other solicitation directed to a 
     broad category of persons or entities), other than a 
     charitable contribution permitted by paragraph 4.
       ``(c) A contribution or other payment by a registered 
     lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal to a legal 
     expense fund established for the benefit of a Member, 
     officer, or employee.
       ``(d) A financial contribution or expenditure made by a 
     registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal 
     relating to a conference, retreat, or similar event, 
     sponsored by or affiliated with an official congressional 
     organization, for or on behalf of Members, officers, or 
     employees.
       ``4. (a) A charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a 
     registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal in 
     lieu of an honorarium to a Member, officer, or employee shall 
     not be considered a gift under this rule if it is reported as 
     provided in subparagraph (b).
       ``(b) A Member, officer, or employee who designates or 
     recommends a contribution to a charitable organization in 
     lieu of honoraria described in subparagraph (a) shall report 
     within 30 days after such designation or recommendation to 
     the Secretary of the Senate--
       ``(1) the name and address of the registered lobbyist who 
     is making the contribution in lieu of honoraria;
       ``(2) the date and amount of the contribution; and
       ``(3) the name and address of the charitable organization 
     designated or recommended by the Member.

     The Secretary of the Senate shall make public information 
     received pursuant to this subparagraph as soon as possible 
     after it is received.
       ``5. For purposes of this rule--
       ``(a) the term `registered lobbyist' means a lobbyist 
     registered under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act or 
     any successor statute; and
       ``(b) the term `agent of a foreign principal' means an 
     agent of a foreign principal registered under the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act.
       ``6. All the provisions of this rule shall be interpreted 
     and enforced solely by the Select Committee on Ethics. The 
     Select Committee on Ethics is authorized to issue guidance on 
     any matter contained in this rule.''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This resolution and the amendment made by this resolution 
     shall take effect on January 1, 1996.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.


                Amendment No. 1874 to Amendment No. 1872

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

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

       The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1874 to amendment No. 1872.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Travel and Lodging to Charitable Events--
       Notwithstanding any provision of the Rule, The term 
     ``gift'' does not include permissible travel, lodging, and 
     meals at an event to raise funds for a bona fide charity, 
     subject to a determination by the Select Committee on Ethics 
     that participation in the charitable event is in the interest 
     of the Senate and the United States.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have followed this debate closely and 
certainly am sensitive to the efforts to try and bring the pending 
compromise agreement to a successful conclusion.
  I heard in the debate the reference that we ought to be treated like 
other Americans; that the executive branch clearly does not enjoy the 
broad benefits that we in this elected office enjoy regarding gifts and 
various other benefits. And that is certainly true.
  On the other hand, there is a difference. And in my amendment I hope 
to focus a little bit on that difference. We are a political body. As a 
consequence, within this compromise there is no prohibition for us to 
continue to receive reimbursement for travel and for lodging associated 
with political activities.
  Who funds those political activities, Mr. President? Lobbyists fund 
those political activities, and political action committees, PAC's. So 
on the one hand, we are proposing sweeping legislation that would bring 
us into conformity with the executive branch. Yet, at the same time, we 
are suggesting that we not consider the benefits we receive from 
political activities associated with our office.
   Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to bring into 
conformity the rules that we would have for transportation and lodging 
in connection with a charitable event with the rule that exists for 
transportation and lodging in connection with a political event such as 
a political fundraiser.
  Under the measure proposed in the compromise that is pending before 
us, as I understand it, private entities would not be able to reimburse 
Members for the cost of transportation and lodging to a charitable 
event. But I think in the compromise there is reference to meals and 
attendance at the charitable events being authorized. But 

[[Page S 10806]]
Members still would be permitted to be privately reimbursed if they 
travel to a fundraising event on behalf of another Member.
  In other words, Mr. President, lobbyists, PAC committees, and other 
contributors could be used to reimburse Members for taking a night off 
and flying to Hollywood, flying to Los Angeles, or flying to Florida 
for a political fundraiser.
 We do not address that in this sweeping revolutionary approach toward 
limitations on our privileges. I find that rather curious, rather 
inconsistent, but rather evident.

  Currently, under the Senate Ethics Committee interpretive ruling No. 
193, a Senator may 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.
  Now, we are different, we indicate, but on the other hand we say we 
ought to be treated the same as the executive branch. But the executive 
branch cannot accept travel expenses from an official or a district 
political party organization in return for his or her appearance at a 
rally sponsored by the organization.
  So this compromise, Mr. President, really does not address our 
attendance, our reimbursement for travel as well as lodging for 
political fundraisers. I might ask the question why, but I think it is 
evident to all of us. We just have not considered this as part of the 
revolutionary changes that are appropriate, that we want to make. But, 
Mr. President, they are still inconsistent, and they leave something to 
be desired. Why should the presence of a Member in supporting a 
charitable organization be treated differently than attending a 
political function where you can receive reimbursement for travel and 
lodging.
  Now, Mr. President, as we know, every Member of this body has at one 
time or another made campaign appearances for his or her party or a 
candidate. Often that means flying to another Member's home State, 
attending a party function, maybe making a speech, sharing a meal, even 
attending an entertainment or sports function, and in almost all cases 
the cost is covered by whom? The cost is covered by lobbyists or other 
political contributors.
  So what we have here is a situation where a Senator can travel 
virtually all over the country attending political fundraisers and have 
lodging and transportation reimbursed. But what the compromise 
proposes, what it proposes as I read it, is that a Senator cannot 
attend charity events, events that raise money for worthwhile causes 
such as a breast cancer detection center, and have those costs 
reimbursed.
  The Senator from Alaska does not believe that that is equitable. It 
does not make sense. Why is it all right for a political action 
committee to host a $500 a plate political fundraiser or give a 
campaign check for $4,000 or $5,000 to an elected official through his 
or her PAC, but there can be no solicitation under this proposal of 
corporations and other individuals to participate in charitable events 
that only benefit perhaps a small community, a small State, or those of 
us out West?
  Now, I believe that this whole notion of preventing Senators and 
corporations from sharing in raising money for a worthwhile cause 
outside the Washington beltway, but allowing large amounts of money as 
political gifts, smacks of sheer hypocrisy.
  Do you think, Mr. President, we can get Senators up to our State if 
they have to pay their way to come to a charitable fundraiser? That is 
what this compromise suggests. Our charity events will be very 
difficult to put on. Those who live adjacent to the beltway can put 
them on right here in Washington, DC.
  Mr. President, my amendment simply provides that Senators would be 
permitted to be privately reimbursed--it is very important that we make 
this distinction because it is a change from previous procedure--
Senators could be privately reimbursed for the cost of lodging and 
transportation in connection with charitable fundraising events if and 
only if--and I would appreciate the attention of my colleagues who have 
labored over this because I think this change is significant--if the 
Senate Select Committee on Ethics determines that participating in the 
charity event is in the interest of the Senate and the United States.
  To repeat that, Mr. President, lodging and transportation in 
connection with charitable fundraising events if the Senate Select 
Committee on Ethics determines that participating in the charity event 
is in the interest of the Senate and the United States.
  So a Member of the Senate could be privately reimbursed for attending 
a charitable fundraiser only, only if the Senate Ethics Committee makes 
a determination that the charitable function is in both the public 
interest as well as the interests of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I believe one of the most important responsibilities 
of a public official--and that is what we are--is occasionally to 
promote worthwhile charitable causes. Not everything can be done for 
the public good directly through the Government. Private charities play 
a vital role in servicing many of the needs of our citizens.
  Last year in my State of Alaska, my wife Nancy and I were the 
honorary chairs of a Senator's fishing tournament in Alaska which 
raised nearly $150,000 for a mammogram machine for the Fairbanks Breast 
Cancer Detection Center. As a result of that event, the detection 
center was able to pay off its mammography machine and as a result the 
center was able to continue to provide free breast cancer examinations 
to those who needed that service--mammograms for 3,700 women who came 
to Fairbanks for breast cancer screening from nearly 81 villages 
throughout the State of Alaska.
  Mr. President, this year, my wife will be hosting a second event for 
the center to raise money for a second mammography unit. This will be a 
mobile mammography unit, one that can move on the limited highways of 
Alaska. But more importantly, one that will be able to be driven into 
the National Guard C-130's, and as they train and generate air time 
they will go into the villages. And the unit would be able to be backed 
out of the planes and provide services to those women who otherwise 
would find it very difficult and expensive to travel into our larger 
communities to take advantage of this type of examination.
  So if we raise sufficient funds--and I think we will--we will be able 
to equip this new mobile van for duty in the rural villages of my 
State. Villagers will not have to come to Fairbanks for tests. They 
will be able to receive these screenings in their local communities.
  This unit I think is vital to help preserve the health of Alaska's 
women. It will service many of the native women in the bush area.
  Our State's cancer mortality is the third highest in the Nation.
  It is estimated nearly one in eight Alaska women will develop some 
signs of breast cancer. Breast cancer screening can reduce those 
amounts, I am told, by up to 30 percent. I firmly believe without the 
funds raised from these two efforts that are promoted in association 
with the U.S. Senate, the health of Alaska women would be potentially 
marginalized.
  I am proud of the work those women have done in keeping these units 
operating and organizing these events. And if we change the rules on 
charitable events, I am convinced that it will be unlikely, certainly 
more difficult, and the success of the event might be severely 
jeopardized.
  Most of my colleagues are aware that former Senator Jake Garn raised 
a great deal of money for the Primary Children's Medical Center in Salt 
Lake City. Mr. President, I can name other charities many Senators have 
been involved in. I believe Senator Pryor has a golf tournament. 
Senator Rockefeller has a children's health project in West Virginia. 
Senator Hatch has a function in his State. I wonder if we really want 
to seriously end Senators' and companies' participation in these causes 
simply because there is a so-called perception problem.
  This discriminates against distant States. I have already mentioned 
that. Some might argue charitable events will still be allowed under 
the proposed compromise bill because the only prohibition contained in 
the bill relates to transportation and lodging in connection with these 
events. That is probably true in the immediate area. In other words, 
Mr. President, if you are a large, national charitable organization 
that has the clout to hold the event in Washington, Members will be 
able to participate in the event. 

[[Page S 10807]]

  But if you are a small organization like the Fairbanks Breast Cancer 
Detection Center or the Arkansas Opportunities, Inc., you are not going 
to have the resources or the capability to have your event held in the 
Nation's Capital. If Senators cannot receive transportation and lodging 
reimbursement, events like mine, even though they would be subject to 
the approval of the Ethics Committee, then I think many of these events 
are going to disappear because it will simply cost too much to get to 
Alaska and other distant States.
  So, Mr. President, I think we have a clear choice. I do not dispute 
the efforts of those who have worked so hard to formulate this 
compromise. But I think in fairness, we have to examine that we left 
out a significant portion, and that is the activities associated with 
political events, where we are still allowed reimbursement for lodging 
and transportation. And I think that is the inconsistency. We want to 
establish the same lodging and transportation rules for charitable 
fundraisers as we have for political fundraising.
  That is my question. Do we want to establish the same rules or do we 
want to make it harder to raise money for worthy charities while at the 
same time continuing the unlimited reimbursement for political 
fundraising? I hope that my colleagues will reflect on this amendment, 
reflect on the realization that it is structured in such a way as to 
mandate our Ethics Committee to review and pass under the legitimacy of 
the chair.
  I do want to assure my colleagues I am very committed to this. I want 
to assure my colleagues, should this amendment fail, I may very well 
offer an amendment to conform the transportation and lodging rules with 
the charitable rules so that Members will have to pay out of their own 
pockets to participate in fundraisers for other political candidates 
like they would under the proposed compromise, which would ban travel 
and lodging for charitable events.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arizona oppose the 
amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Arizona opposes the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 30 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. President, I understand the logic in the argument and am in 
sympathy with what the Senator from Alaska is saying, especially when 
viewed in a somewhat narrow and focused context. In case the Senator 
from Alaska missed it, there is a new book out called ``Ethics in 
Congress,'' by a Mr. Dennis F. Thompson. On page 107, Mr. Thompson 
says:

       In the case of gifts these considerations argue for a gift 
     rule that is simple, strict, and broad. First, the rule 
     should have few exceptions, and none based on the supposed 
     virtuousness of a motive. During the Senate debate on gift 
     reform, many members urged that expenses for travel to 
     charitable events should be exempt. No one noted the ironic 
     implication of this suggestion: if members are less in danger 
     of being corrupted by gifts for charity than by for gifts for 
     themselves, they must care more about personal gain than 
     philanthropic causes. The only exceptions that should be 
     allowed are those that are necessary for members to carry out 
     their legitimate political activities (meals taken in 
     conjunction with their official duties, for instance) and 
     those typical of normal social and family life (such as 
     customary birthday gifts to their children from friends).

  I think that passage pretty well sums up why I oppose this amendment.
  I would also like to address the last statement that the Senator from 
Alaska made that, in case his amendment fails, then he would propose an 
amendment that would provide that for travel as involving political 
activity. Let me quote again from this book:

       In this spirit, members found it difficult to resist when 
     Senator Frank Murkowski proposed an amendment that banned 
     gifts from PACs. ``My amendment,'' he said, ``merely adds [to 
     the gift] prohibition . . . a very important type of gift, a 
     political contribution.''
       But contributions are not exactly the same as gifts, and if 
     they are to be treated the same, reform has to go much 
     further than members are prepared even to consider. Senator 
     William Cohen pointedly distinguished the different roles of 
     senators: ``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 
     [reducing] the value of a gift . . . 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.'' Many reformers believe that Congress 
     should follow that logic, and they may be right. But as Cohen 
     observes ``there are very few [members] who are willing to 
     take that step.'' As long as candidates must raise funds for 
     campaigns, legislative ethics must find ways to control the 
     conditions under which they receive contributions. To 
     understand better what the conditions should be, it is 
     necessary to consider the further difficulties of finding 
     corrupt motives in cases in which the gain is political 
     rather than personal.

  Mr. President, there is another passage I would like to quote from 
very briefly:

       Some might argue--

  And I have heard this several times on the floor and in the course of 
the discussions we have had on this issue.

       Some might argue these and other efforts to win the 
     confidence of the public are futile. The public, especially 
     news media, will never be satisfied, no matter how many 
     reforms Congress makes. Congress has added more and tougher 
     standards and imposed sanctions on more members in recent 
     years, yet public confidence continues to decline and demands 
     for reform continue to increase. Why bother to try to satisfy 
     such apparently insatiable demands? The first answer must be 
     that Congress has no realistic alternative. In a democratic 
     system, legislators cannot do their jobs without seeking to 
     win the confidence of citizens. Even if individual members 
     manage to win reelection in the face of widespread cynicism 
     about Congress, they will still suffer the effects of ethical 
     controversy, as it implicates their colleagues and interferes 
     with the conduct of legislative business. If members do not 
     continue to try to improve the ethics process, they will find 
     themselves and the institution increasingly deflected from 
     legislative duties.
       The loss of confidence in Congress does not mean that the 
     reforms of recent years have had no positive effect. The 
     decline is no doubt the result of many causes unrelated to 
     ethics and might even have been worse if Congress had taken 
     its ethics less seriously than it did. Furthermore, the 
     improvements, modest though they may have been, have not gone 
     without notice. Informed observers and other opinion leaders 
     believe that members are more honest and the institution less 
     corrupt than it used to be, which is likely to have a 
     favorable effect on public opinion in the long run. Finally, 
     some of the continuing distrust may be warranted. Citizens 
     are surely right to be suspicious of some practices of ethics 
     committees, such as refusing to release testimony and 
     reports.
       Also, some reforms may not have gone far enough or may not 
     have been focused precisely enough on the ethical problems 
     that should be of most concern.

  Mr. President, as I said, I understand and sympathize with the 
amendment of the Senator from Alaska. I hope that in the broader 
context of what I just quoted in this book, it will explain better my 
opposition to the amendment.
  I yield whatever time he may need to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I say to my colleague 
from Alaska, two mornings ago I heard quite a wonderful report on the 
work that the Murkowskis do in Alaska. I absolutely understand the why 
of the amendment and admire the Senator for what he stands for. We do 
not always agree on all issues of the committee he chairs, but I do not 
think there is ever any question about his personal intentions and his 
sincerity.
  Again, the important point is that the contributions and the paying 
for trips is permitted when it comes to charitable activity. The key 
language is as long as what you are doing is not substantially 
recreational. That is the real issue.
  I say to my colleagues, that is the key point. The problem for us is 
that we have gone to these gatherings and they are for a good cause, 
but a large part of our activity is for the golf and for the tennis, 
and it is substantially recreational.
  Frankly, we do not look good. It is a matter of perception, and we 
should just let go of it. We do not need it. That is really the 
problem.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I do not believe, as I understand the compromise, that 


[[Page S 10808]]
there is a provision, as the Senator from Minnesota suggests, for 
reimbursement for travel and lodging if it is not a substantially 
recreational function.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would appreciate a clarification, because I was 
under the impression that there was no provision for charitable 
activity associated with transportation and lodging, that there was no 
provision whatsoever.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague that, as a matter of fact, there 
is as long as once you come to the event your activity is not 
substantially recreational. That is the key point. Then there is a 
prohibition. Otherwise, there is not. I say to my colleague, if, in 
your official duty, you go to a gathering for a good cause--that is why 
you are there and that is how you spend your time--that is fine. The 
problem is when--and I defer to my colleague from Michigan if he wants 
to add to this--the problem is when you go to a gathering and you spend 
most of your time in recreational activity, then the paying for that 
travel is not permitted. That is the key distinction.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator for that clarification. In all 
deference, I was not aware that was the case. When the bill was offered 
as a compromise, it specifically prohibited transportation and lodging 
for charitable events, as was so stated.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I would be very interested in 
the comments of the Senator from Michigan, but we may have just some 
confusion here which we may be able to clear up.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Minnesota will yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will.
  Mr. LEVIN. The language that is now in the substitute is that 
``reimbursement for transportation and lodging may not be accepted in 
connection with an event that does not meet the standards provided in 
paragraph 2.'' And those standards are that it must be connected to 
your official duties and it must not be substantially recreational in 
nature.
  So if a charitable event is connected to your official duties and is 
not substantially recreational in nature, then it is explicit, which I 
think was intended last year but perhaps was not clear enough, that 
reimbursement would be provided.
  It is only for these charitable events or these recreational events, 
depending on how you describe them, which are substantially 
recreational that there is not the reimbursement for lodging and 
travel, because those are not your official duties. If they were, you 
could be reimbursed. It is when they are not connected to your official 
duties.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the floor manager, what official business would 
be considered charitable?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is up to each of us. A lot of us go to charitable 
events connected to our official duties. I go to a tuberculosis dinner 
back home. If I decide as a Member of the Senate that it is connected 
to my official duties to be there, then that is connected to my 
official duties, and if it is not substantially recreational in nature, 
I can then be reimbursed for that transportation.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. So you would be reimbursed by the Government for that 
transportation.
  Mr. LEVIN. By the private party. This is talking about when 
reimbursement is permitted by the private party.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. So you would be, in that case, reimbursed by the 
private party----
  Mr. LEVIN. Could be.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. And even though the charity was not Senate business in 
a sense, you made a decision----
  Mr. LEVIN. It has to be connected to your official business.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In the particular case I am citing where I hold events 
in my State, I do not have the same opportunity of those who live in 
the areas surrounding the beltway. So I am just out in the harsh 
reality that I cannot get the attendance. That is the problem I have, 
and it is one of inequity.
  Mr. LEVIN. It may be related to your official duties.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. What I proposed, and I hope you consider it, is let 
the Ethics Committee make that determination.
  Mr. LEVIN. I heard the proposal. But the Senator going home to a 
charitable event may be related to his official duties, in which case 
you can be reimbursed by the private party, providing it is not 
substantially recreational.
  Substantially recreational is the divide. Is it recreational or is it 
an event not substantially recreational or relevant to your official 
duties? If it is, you can then be reimbursed by that private party.
  If I decide going to an event in Alaska or any other State, other 
than my own, is related to my official duties, and if it is not 
substantially recreational, then I could be reimbursed. That is a 
judgment I would make. That is the line which is drawn in the bill.
  The effort is made to distinguish between the recreational trips and 
the trips which all of us make which are related to our official duties 
and which are not substantially recreational in nature. We all go to 
make a speech at some meeting. If that is related to our official 
duties and is not substantially recreational in nature, we can be 
reimbursed by the private party. That is a judgment each one of us 
makes in the bill, and that is very different, however, from the 
recreational trips where people, I think would agree, are not related 
to their official duties and where they are substantially recreational 
in nature.
  If that is the judgment, we should not be taking money from private 
parties, in the opinion of those of us that have reached this 
conclusion.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond, because I think there is a 
distinction here, and that is----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me just announce to the Senate, the 
Senator from Minnesota still has the time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware wants to put 
a question to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. BIDEN. I would like to ask the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Can I make this one comment and then yield the floor?
  Mr. BIDEN. Sure.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Very quickly, I say to the Senator from Alaska that we 
have had this discussion, because this may just be some confusion. I do 
not know any other way but to say it straight. What we have tried to 
do, and what we have done in this coalition effort, is to just deal 
with what has gotten us into trouble, which is not what I think the 
Senator from Alaska is talking about, which is some of the ski and golf 
trips, and whatever. I think we should let go of that and end that 
practice.
  When you go home, and as part of your official work, you go to a 
charitable activity, such as the Senator from Alaska cares fiercely 
about, and your activity there is not substantially recreation--you are 
not going there to ski all weekend, or whatever--that is permissible. 
Maybe we have cleared that up.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to pursue this, if I may, because while I 
do not disagree with the Senator relative to the concept of what we are 
trying to do away with here, we also have to keep in mind the basic 
function of a charitable event, and that is to raise money.
  Now, the question of what kind of an atmosphere do you raise that 
money in is what we are debating at this current time. Clearly, there 
have been excesses relative to the recreational events associated with 
charitable fundraisers. I would be the first to acknowledge that. But 
what we have now is a proposal that is so stringent, in the sense that 
we are not allowing the Ethics Committee to review the legitimacy of 
the charity, we are simply saying if it is not connected with any 
activity associated with recreation.
  I ask my friend from Minnesota what he might suggest to be the 
nucleus for the event, to bring those that will contribute to the 
charity, and that is the problem of the Senator from Alaska. I assume 
it would be determined that a fishing tournament, which is what I 
offer, would be a recreational event. It is not a skiing event, it is 
not a golf event. I would call it a fishing event. I think in the 
spirit of the debate it would be considered recreation.
  Now, that venue, if you will, allows for the opportunity to raise the 
money for the charity. This Senator would be 

[[Page S 10809]]
very pleased to look at some other avenue, but I, very frankly, think 
it would be difficult to attract the Senators, the sponsors, and others 
to come to a luncheon in Fairbanks, AK, for a fundraiser for the Breast 
Cancer Detection Center because it will not have the same magnitude of 
my fishing event.
  However, I am willing to leave that up to the Ethics Committee to 
make a determination of what the guidelines and rules are, how many 
hours of free time on the event, where the event is held, or whatever. 
Right now, this legislation basically puts me out of business of 
promoting major charities in my State. I understand the intent. But I 
implore my colleagues to perhaps pursue a little innovation so that we 
are simply not eliminated from what is a worthwhile endeavor funded by 
corporations that are willing to make a contribution.
  I do not want to go into the other issue, but there is an 
inconsistency there, as my friend from Minnesota, I think, would 
recognize. While we do not address political activities, they are paid 
for by the same source--lobbyists, political action committees, and so 
forth. So I would rather not mix that area. I am looking for relief.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me say two things to my colleague from Alaska. 
First of all, if we want to talk about campaign finance reform, and if 
the Senator is concerned about people paying for trips that Senators 
take which raise money, introduce an amendment to deal with that 
problem. But that is not what we are talking about tonight. The Senator 
can introduce an amendment to deal with that. It is a matter of 
proportion.
  I think every Senator should be aware of this. You can go to a 
charitable gathering. That can be part of your work. You should go, and 
it could be paid for by a private party. There is no question about 
that. The problem is, when it is substantially recreational, that is 
where the abuse comes in.
  Mr. President, you cannot make a distinction between fishing trips, 
or tennis, or golf, or skiing. That is the problem. That is where we 
have gotten ourselves into trouble, no matter how good the cause is. 
When a particular lobbyist or interest pays for a Senator for a 
weekend, or several days of travel, and accommodations to go fishing or 
play golf or to go skiing, it is just inappropriate. I mean, what has 
to attract people to the gatherings is the cause itself. God knows what 
the Murkowski's do is a very important cause. But we have to let go of 
these paid-for ski trips, golf trips, and tennis trips. We have to let 
go of it. It is not appropriate, and it does not look good. People do 
not want us to do it.
  I urge my colleagues to let go of it. That is why I think this 
amendment must be defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, who is controlling?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield whatever time the Senator from Michigan needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 12\1/2\ minutes remaining for the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is one of the basic reforms in this 
bill, because these recreational trips--and that is what they are--have 
created great difficulty for the U.S. Congress in terms of public 
confidence in this institution.
  The public has seen over and over again the ski trips, the golf 
outings, the tennis trips, with our families, being put up at fancy 
lodges and being given fancy meals--and, yes, there is a charity which 
also benefits. But we get a big benefit from that. It is called 
recreational travel. There are two beneficiaries of this travel. One 
are the Members that take it; second is the charity that also benefits, 
because some of the contributions from the contributors go to the 
charity, and some go to us in the form of payment for our travel, our 
lodging, and our meals.
  Now, a lot of the charities are noble--in fact, probably most are. I 
know the charities of the Senator from Alaska are noble. I think people 
should contribute to those charities, but in a way which does not 
undermine the confidence in this institution; the price that we pay for 
benefiting the charity in that case is too high. The price that we pay 
is that the public sees us at the outing, or on the slopes, with the 
special interests right there with us, paying for our recreation. If 
they are not there with us, they pay for our recreational travel.
  It results in this kind of a TV show. I think all of us have seen 
these shows. This is from the Inside Edition of February 10:

       Imagine you and your family spending 3 days and nights at a 
     charming world-class ski resort, top-of-the-line lodging and 
     cozy chalets, with a wonderful mountain of skiing at your 
     doorstep, and absolutely no worries about the cost of 
     anything. You will never waste a moment waiting in line for a 
     lift at the top because, like the people you are about to 
     meet, you are king of the hill, and this is the sweetest deal 
     on the slopes.

  Now, that is what the public sees. What they see is the benefit that 
we gain when we go on recreational travel. What they do not see, 
perhaps, is the benefit that the charity gets.
  And so we have to make a decision--each one of us--as to whether or 
not, No. 1, we believe that when we go on recreational travel, we 
should be able to be reimbursed for that. This is a benefit for us. It 
is recreational travel, not related to our official duties
 of significant value. That troubles me.

  The second issue that each Member must face, even though a charity 
also benefits along with Members, whether or not the price that is paid 
for that good cause, getting a benefit, is too high, in terms of this 
good institution being diminished in terms of public respect and in the 
public eye.
  That is the decision we each should make. It is called recreational 
travel. We have seen it and read about it. Some Members have 
participated in it. We have to make a decision.
  This bill significantly restricts gifts. It is long overdue. We are 
trying very hard to increase public confidence in this institution and 
in the Congress. It takes work. We have to change the way we do things, 
to accomplish that very important goal.
  I believe for Members to permit recreational travel is going in 
exactly the opposite direction from the direction of this bill. This is 
why I hope that the Murkowski amendment would be defeated.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe that we have 9 minutes 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is the intention of the Chair after the time is 
expired to entertain other amendments tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the order.
  Mr. LEVIN. I do not know what the Senator from Mississippi, the 
majority whip, has in mind. I think that what they have in mind, 
however, is that we proceed to other amendments after the time is 
expired or is yielded back on this amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I understand.
  Mr. President, I have listened to the debate tonight. Clearly, the 
reference to eliminating any interpretation of recreation makes it very 
difficult to successfully hold a charitable event outside of the 
beltway, or certainly not further than a reasonable proximity.
  I think that is unfortunate. If we were to leave the issue at that, I 
suppose the Senator from Alaska could reflect on the merits of simply 
an up-down vote on the issue and resolve it. But when the debate goes 
on and suggests that somehow, because it is a charitable event, that it 
is subject to charges that inappropriate or poor judgmental actions 
occurred on the part of Members. Yet when one looks at the source of 
support for the charitable event or the political event, we find the 
sources are the same. They come from fundraisers. And we can get full 
reimbursement for political events, transportation, and lodging from a 
source that also provides legitimate funds for the benefit of the 
charity. Funds are coming from the same place.
  I seem to be the only one that is drawing any attention to that. If 
we are being critical of ourselves--as we are and as we should be from 
time to time relative to the appropriateness of accepting funds through 
PAC's, political organizations, lobbyists and others, for charitable 
events--and we absolutely ignore the fact that we accept it for 
political events for transportation and lodging, the same exact 
sources, I say that at the least we are being inconsistent. 

[[Page S 10810]]

  No one in this body wants to make that connection because it is 
inconvenient. It is embarrassing. After all, we are politicians and 
politics and serving the people of our State is our business. I think 
to some extent, attendance at charitable activities, legitimate 
charitable activities, that would be subject to approval by the Ethics 
Committee and more or less reviewed by them as to their legitimacy, 
would be an appropriate measure of legitimacy.
  Unfortunately, it appears that this particular proposal that has been 
structured is cast in concrete, and with the exception of the 
explanation the Senator from Alaska received a few moments ago, clearly 
charitable activities such as the one that I have discussed simply 
could not function under this narrow interpretation because it 
eliminates recreation activities.
  As we wind down the debate and the time is about to expire, there is 
indeed a principle involved here, as we address the legitimacy of not 
only those who suggest that this compromise should be structured in the 
same way as the executive branch receives consideration for their 
extracurricular activities. Yet it does not recognize in the same 
breath that the executive office does not receive reimbursement or 
travel for appearance at political events. Yet we do. And that is the 
difference.
  When we go to the legitimacy of charitable events, we say no, we 
cannot get reimbursement for travel and lodging, but we can get it for 
political events. Others say, well, just a minute, the Senator from 
Alaska does not understand the problem. We are talking about something 
other than political events now, so that should not be part of the 
discussion.
  The Senator from Alaska, I think, would again remind all of my 
colleagues as to the source of these funds and the principle involved. 
If for some reason or another we find it unpalatable to accept funds 
from those who would fund charitable events, one wonders why we would 
be so eager to accept funds for travel to political events.
  I encourage my colleagues to think on the merits of legitimate 
charitable activities which we all participate in, which will be 
substantially limited, in my opinion, under this very narrow 
interpretation. And I think that is indeed very unfortunate.
  I have nothing further to say, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I 
yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has yielded back his 
time. The time in opposition is 7 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I want to be sure 
that we remember why these provisions are in the bill. It has to do 
with the fact that if you had to pick one aspect of this whole issue of 
gifts that seem to have brought more perception problems for the Senate 
than any other, it is the problem with the so-called charitable events.
  This is not to say that they do not have any merit--some of them. But 
the portrayals, particularly on some of the national television shows, 
have shown Members of this body and of the other body participating in 
events that were obviously dominantly recreational, that had to do with 
golf or tennis or whatever it might be. It was pretty obvious by the 
end of any one of these segments that the event was an opportunity for 
a Member of Congress to have an awfully good time on the ticket of 
whatever the organization that was promoting the event or the charity, 
whatever it was.
  Yes, this may have some negative impact in terms of what the Senator 
from Alaska is trying to talk about. I think in his case the fact that 
he is referring primarily to what he wants to do in his home State 
suggests to me it probably would not be a problem.
  The problem would occur more in the more publicized events--ski 
events in Utah, the golfing events in Idaho--that have nothing to do 
with our own home State. These are the ones that have caused a very 
serious problem.
  I believe it is very appropriate that this bill sets forth that in 
the case of an event that is a charitable event and is not specifically 
within the person's role as a representation of the Senate, then those 
cases--the travel and the lodging--are really too much.
  It has been abused. There are Members--I am not thinking of a Member 
of this body, but I am thinking of a case of a Member of the other 
body--who made a practice of going every week to these so-called 
charitable golfing events. I remember the Member got a $200 sweater at 
each event. The meals and everything went back to his district 
afterwards. It was a way of life. This is what we are trying to get at.
  I think it has been reasonably crafted. I do think it addresses the 
concern of the Senator from Alaska, which obviously has to do more with 
his own home State.
 Whether or not he is going to be able to attract Members of this body 
to Alaska, given the fact that there is a problem with lodging and the 
travel--it may be difficult. I do not want to suggest it will not be, 
possibly, a problem. But I think the greater concern here is that we 
eliminate this overall practice. I think this is reasonably drafted to 
achieve that.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I could just make one comment to my 
friend from Wisconsin, it looks like the only way out, there, is to 
attract the millionaires of the Senate who might be able to come to 
Alaska and attend a charity event. If it passes in its current form, I 
will advise the Senator from Wisconsin of my success in attracting the 
millionaires that are in the Senate to come up. We will have to see.
  On the other hand, I hope my amendment will be adopted based on the 
merits of my presentation. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. No one else wants time on this side. I think, if all time 
has been yielded back by my friend from Alaska, then I will yield the 
remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.

                          ____________________