[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 123 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10810-S10818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CONGRESSIONAL GIFT REFORM ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe other amendments are now in order 
for debate? I do not have a copy of the unanimous consent we are 
operating under.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, I understand there are 
negotiations continuing on some of these amendments with the hope that 
maybe some agreement could be worked out and that we are prepared to go 
forward momentarily with the amendment concerning the limits in the 
bill. We will be ready to go with that in just a moment.
  If the Senator would like to take up any other issue? If not, Mr. 
President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
[[Page S 10811]]

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
Murkowski amendment be set aside so we may proceed to the next 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1875 to Amendment No. 1872

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1875 to amendment No. 1872.
       On page 1, strike lines 9 through 12, and on page 2, strike 
     lines 1 through 4; and insert the following:
       ``(2) No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate, shall 
     knowingly accept, directly or indirectly, any gifts in any 
     calendar year aggregating more than $100 or more from any 
     person, entity, organization, or corporation unless, in 
     limited and appropriate circumstances, a waiver is granted by 
     the Select Committee on Ethics. The prohibitions of this 
     paragraph do not apply to gifts with a value of less than 
     $50.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Mississippi controls 30 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have not spoken today on the efforts that 
have been underway to come up with a reasonable, practical, and 
agreeable package that we could have in this area of gift rule reform. 
I understand that there is a need to tighten up on these rules and to 
clarify others so Members will know exactly what they can and cannot do 
under our rules of the Senate. But I also think we have to be very 
careful that we do not do it in such a way that we make it impossible 
for us to live within the rules and do our job. That is why I have been 
very interested in how it is developed.
  I do think a lot of credit goes to the managers of this legislation. 
Senator McConnell, from Kentucky, has really moved us toward serious 
agreement on lobby reform that is, I think, long overdue. It was 
needed. We got an agreement on that earlier this week. And by his 
continued efforts, I think we are getting close to gift reform that 
will change the rule of the Senate in such a way that we will all be 
better off.
  His work with Senator Levin has produced a package with a lot more 
agreement than I ever thought we would be able to come to tonight. But 
they have provided real leadership. Senator McCain has been involved, 
Senator Wellstone, Senator Feingold, many others, Senator Lieberman, 
Senator Breaux, Senator Ford--there is a long list of people who have 
been involved and I think they all deserve a lot of credit.
  The substitute we are working from is a major change from what we 
started out with, as the original Levin-Cohen bill. First of all, it is 
not a statute anymore. It will be a rule. And I think that is an 
important change.
  There have been a lot of questions raised, a lot of concerns, about 
what we can and cannot do. What is a personal friendship? What is a 
widely attended event? What do you do about awards, mementos? So, many 
of those things have been clarified. I think we are working from a much 
better product than where we started.
  Efforts are still underway to clarify what is the situation with 
regard to our spouses. I think we need to be very careful about that.
  I want to also emphasize this, though. And others have said it. Most 
Senators do their job. They do not get a lot of gifts or expensive 
awards. It just does not happen. It has been implied here we can go to 
dinner every night. First of all, how? We are here almost every night. 
We are a nocturnal institution. We do not start work until the Sun goes 
down. I take my hat off to any Senator who can run downtown to some 
expensive, fancy dinner. I do not see how they do it and make all the 
votes. And with the average of voting of the U.S. Senators being 97 
percent or better, they are not doing both of those.
  So any impression that has been given that there is a cesspool of 
activity going on here, it is just not so. Yes, when the mayor of 
Buzzards Roost comes to my office, she gives me a cap from Buzzards 
Roost. I put it on my stand. Glad to have it. We do go to lunches with 
our constituents. We do have relationships with friends.
  If we have to give all that up, then we might as well just go ahead 
and admit that we are not living a real human life around here. So we 
do not want to do that and I think, with the changes that have been 
made, the changes we are still working on, we can accomplish that. 
Every Senator on both sides of the aisle agrees that a reform of the 
Senate rules concerning gifts is overdue and is necessary.
 And I think that is why we are going to get it accomplished here. But 
sometimes in life you can agree on the general purpose but some of the 
specifics can cause a problem. That is the amendment that I am 
addressing here tonight. I think that it is very important that we do 
not put ourselves in the position where we cannot basically function 
without violating the rules.

  So this amendment that I sent to the desk will change the limit in 
the base bill from the $20, with that being aggregated up to no more 
than $50, and replace that with a Senator being able to accept a meal 
or a gift under $50 but with an aggregation of no more than $100. That 
aggregation is very, very important because that means that you can go 
to a lunch with a person, a lobbyist, or a nonlobbyist if it costs less 
than $50, and you can do it a couple of times in a year, but it cannot 
exceed $100. So that addresses the problem that you go to a lunch or a 
dinner every night or every day like somebody implied. You are not 
breaking the rules. I think that is a significant change from our 
original bill that was offered on this side that only had the $100 
figure without an aggregate of what that could add up to.
  So we have made changes. But here is my problem. This also now 
includes meals. In the past, we did not have the meals included under 
those limits. Now even the meals would be affected by this $20 and $50. 
Most of us do not go to big, fancy lunches. But there are not even 
lunches that cost less than $20, and no dinners.
  So the rule that is in the substitute, $20 and $50, would guarantee 
that you could not go to a dinner even with some constituents. As I 
understand the language in the bill, if the Chamber of Commerce in my 
hometown comes to Washington, and a group of eight of them want to take 
my wife, Tricia, and me to dinner, we can go. But if my part of the 
dinner is $30, then the group that invited me could not pay for that. I 
would have to pay for it.
  And then there also have been questions about how does that affect 
your spouse? Is she treated separately or is that under the $20? In 
other words, what if they are $19 and $19. You get the point. It gets 
to be ridiculous.
  I am not talking about, in this instance, some hifalutin lobbyist in 
Washington taking me out to dinner. I am talking about Jim Esterbrook 
from Esterbrook Ford from Pascagoula, MS along with a few other Chamber 
of Commerce or union members. I am a son of a pipefitter union member. 
The boilermakers come up here every year. I have never been to dinner 
with them. In fact, I would be happy if I would never have to go to 
another dinner in this city. I would rather have pork chops and turnip 
greens in Pascagoula than any dinner I have ever been to up here.
  All I am advocating is a rule of reason--$50--who here could be 
bought for a $50 dinner? Not anybody. That is ridiculous.
  Can we at least have a little reason? In other words, what we are 
saying is, under the $20 and $50, OK. You can go to a $19 lunch but you 
cannot go to a $31 dinner. Come now.
  It will be said, well, you know, it applies to the Federal 
Government. It has applied to them for several years. They seem to have 
done all right with that. Well, that is a good point. But I mean we are 
not in the same role as they are. We do have a very active relationship 
with the constituents. People are interested in legislation. I think we 
ought to be able to go and have a hot dog or a cup of coffee without 
having to keep a running tab.
  Now, to their credit, that has been changed in the substitute as I 
understand it now. Earlier there had even been the requirement that if 
you had a $7 lunch with a hot dog and potato chips and a Coke, you 
would have to keep a piece of paper, and that would be a running tab to 
make sure that did not exceed in aggregate in a year $50. But that 
shows you on its face how ridiculous some of this stuff has been.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield on that point? That has been 
changed.

[[Page S 10812]]

  Mr. LOTT. That has been changed. I admit. It has been changed. That 
is the type of thing that we have been able to make improvements on. 
That is why we are here tonight in the role we are in. I thought 24 
hours ago we would be here with two stark alternatives. That is not 
where we are. A lot of progress has been made. We have worked out 
things like this.
  Senator Levin, Senator Feingold, and Senator Wellstone have been 
willing to, as we talked about these things, make some changes. And 
Senator McCain certainly has been very active in that.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am worried about the dollar figure here also. As the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, I had the duty to close the Senate 
dining room. Most Members do not know why we closed it. But we closed 
it because we discovered that we were charging roughly $8.50 for a 
dinner that cost more than $20. This is in a room that is owned by the 
Federal Government, with heat, light and all the services provided. I 
am just talking about food service cost and the food itself was more 
than $20. But no one would pay more than $20 for it. So we closed that 
dining room.
  I would be happy to have the sponsors put in this Record where we can 
get--when the chamber of commerce comes into town from Anchorage or 
Pascagoula, wherever you want, they want to take us to dinner with 
their wives. And they would like to have a tablecloth on the table and 
maybe some flowers and just a nice dinner in a quiet place. Tell me 
where you can get it for $20 a person here in town.
  I think they ought to tell us where you can do that. I do not think 
we ought to have to go to places where families do not go but where 
people take their wives when we have our constituents in town. That $20 
figure is really a very low figure. I do not think it is realistic in 
this town. This town now is more expensive than my hometown of 
Anchorage. At one time it was the highest priced town in the country. 
This town, Washington, is much more expensive than any town I know of 
in the country today for dinners.
  But, again, I just think they ought to do something about it. Or 
maybe they ought to talk to their wives about it. It would be very 
interesting. Because I agree with the Senator from Mississippi. It just 
means that I do not have to go out as much any more if we put a $20 
figure in there. I am sure the wives would love that. I really think 
the $20 figure needs a lot of thinking.
  But I really am asking the Senator if he is ready for me to propose 
my amendment. I am ready to propose an amendment if he would like to 
have me do that. But I join him in really raising a serious question 
about their $20 figure.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from Alaska. I think we could all come 
up with a lot of stories. I think simply--without getting all riled up 
about the $20 figure--it is not a reasonable figure. It would be so 
delicate, so impossible and so embarrassing how you would handle that.
  If we are going to go with that figure, we ought to go to zero, 
absolute zero. Some Senators already do that. And that way you would 
understand no Coke, no coffee, no potato chips, no nothing. At least I 
will not have a recordkeeping nightmare. I will not have to be so 
nervous. Well, is this $19.50 or is this $21?
  I think the little difference of $50 with a total for the year of not 
to exceed $100 from an individual is much more reasonable, and it would 
be a lot easier for the Members to comply with. I cannot believe 
anybody in America would question our integrity with those kinds of 
limits.
  In view of the hour and the fact that there are others who want to 
speak on this, and we may want to rise to debate it a little bit after 
others speak, and the fact that Senator Stevens is waiting now to offer 
an amendment which perhaps we can get an agreement on, I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan controls the time.
  Mr. LOTT. I would yield--how many minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona?
  Mr. McCAIN. Seven minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Seven minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to me, I would 
be happy to yield time off this amendment if the Senator would like it 
because I am not going to use much time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator suggesting that the pending amendment be 
set aside so the Senator could introduce the Senator's amendment which 
has been agreed to on both sides?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes. But the Senator can use some of the time off it.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  Did the Senator want to do it at this time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Whenever.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator from Arizona, who has the 
time, would be agreeable to that, we could allow the Senator from 
Alaska to set aside this amendment for now and dispose of it, and then 
come back to the remarks of the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside in order that the Senator from Alaska may present his amendment, 
and following that we return to the pending Lott amendment and I may be 
granted my time at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The pending amendment is now set aside.


                Amendment No. 1876 to Amendment No. 1872

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. This is 
the amendment known as the spouse amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1876 to amendment No. 1872:
       On page 2 of the amendment, strike lines 12 through 20 and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(2)(A) A gift to a family member 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.''

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, first let me apologize to my friend from 
Mississippi. I was off the floor and did not realize he had called up 
his amendment. I thought he was speaking in general about it when I 
came in, and I really did not intend to be so abrupt with my good 
friend.
  Mr. President, as former chairman of the Ethics Committee, I have had 
many experiences about the reference in the ethics law pertaining to 
spouses. Spouses are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Senate. I 
applaud the way that the Senator from Arizona has prepared this 
amendment in several instances to avoid the implication in it of 
spouses, that merely because one is married to a Senator she or he is 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Senate. This is an attempt now to 
further continue what the Senator from Arizona has started, which I 
said I think is a very good trend.
  What it really says is that a gift to any family member or person 
that has an individual relationship with a Member, officer, or employee 
shall be considered a gift to the Member if that Member has knowledge 
of it and has acquiesced in it and there is reason to believe it was 
given because of the Member's office.
  I am hopeful this will remove some of the bad feelings that spouses 
of Members have had about the existing law and previous interpretations 
of the law pertaining to spouses and dependents. It does carry out the 
intent of what the Senator from Arizona had intended to do, and I 
understand it will be accepted.
  I wish to say just briefly, our spouses, a lot of people do not 
realize the amount of time they really put in in terms of helping us 
with our constituents and with our problems. There was an assumption in 
the original ethics law--not this draft of the amendment of the Senator 
from Arizona, but there was an assumption there that the Senate could 
exert jurisdiction over a spouse or dependent who lived with a 

[[Page S 10813]]
Senator. That has led to a lot of conversations for this Senator, both 
in the time I was chairman of the Ethics Committee and since then, as 
to the propriety of that assumption.
  I am pleased to see it totally eliminated now. If this amendment is 
adopted, I do not think there is a presumption in this bill of 
jurisdiction over a spouse or any family member. The jurisdiction is 
over the Member because of acquiescence and knowledge of a gift to any 
person that has been associated, or is associated with a Member and 
with the knowledge that that gift was given to that person because of 
the Member's official position. I think that is a correct way for this 
bill to address the problem. I am pleased to hear it will be accepted. 
I thank all concerned for giving us that consideration.
  To me, to get back just for a minute to the overall problem, if I had 
my druthers, as I would have said years ago, I would rather see a full 
disclosure bill, a bill that requires us to disclose our activities 
with any person with regard to our official capacity and leave it 
there. I think once we start writing these detailed laws which try to 
convince people we are ethical; we have passed a new law, we lose a 
great deal of meaning for the Senate. We witnessed the respect that is 
held for the distinguished Member from West Virginia today. I think 
that those of us who are newcomers compared to Senator Byrd should 
realize that the respect that the Senate had in the days of the 
Russells and the Dirksens and those who have come before us were days 
when there was no ethics law at all. The respect was held for the body 
itself because the Members assured that that respect was maintained. It 
did not take a law. It did not take an ethics law. Mike Mansfield was 
not the majority leader that he was because of an ethics law. There was 
none at the time. It came in later. And when you really look at the 
great titans who have served on this floor--and I think there have been 
many--they were not guided by an ethics law. They were guided by their 
sense of right and wrong and by the mission that they had as Members of 
the Senate.
  I would that we could return to that day, when we trusted the public 
to trust us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Arizona will yield briefly 
for a comment unless he is going to comment on the amendment of the 
Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have a brief comment if I could.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will, of course, wait until after he is done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I wish to express my appreciation to the Senator from 
Alaska for this amendment. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if I 
expressed my appreciation to his spouse, who obviously takes a keen 
interest in these issues. She hails from the State of Arizona, which I 
think accounts for most of the dynamic intelligence which she displays. 
I do understand her point, and I understand the point of the Senator 
from Alaska on this issue. We should not designate people simply by 
virtue of marriage. There should be a broader interpretation of this 
issue, and I appreciate not only the Senator from Alaska but his 
wonderful spouse as well.
  I have no further comment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield to me 2 minutes without 
losing his right to the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Let me thank the Senator from Alaska. 
He has been in the forefront in fighting for the independence and the 
rights of our spouses not to be treated as though somehow or other they 
are covered by the rules of the Senate when they are not Members of the 
Senate. He has been very sensitive to that issue. As he pointed out, 
the intention of both the underlying bill and the substitute before us 
is not to include spouses in these rules because they are not Members 
of the Senate. He has identified some language which inadvertently 
might suggest to the contrary, and he has corrected that. And I think 
we are all in his debt, and I know our spouses are all very much in his 
debt. We thank him for that.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as the Senator from Arizona said, I will 
know when I get home whether I am right or wrong.
  As Members have said to me quite often, I am one of the fortunate 
Senators in that I have married twice. Both of my spouses have been 
very committed to this institution and particularly paid a great deal 
of attention to the way that spouses and family members are treated in 
view of the obvious problem of being married to a Member of the Senate, 
but I am grateful for the comments he has made. We have made a small, 
but important, change to this bill with this amendment.
  It really is in my opinion no change. It is just a proper definition 
of who we are addressing with regard to a gift that should be treated 
as being made because of the office of the U.S. Senator. And I think 
this will be sufficient. So I again thank the Senator from Arizona and 
the Senator from Michigan for accepting the amendment. I am prepared to 
yield back the balance of my time unless someone wants to use it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment? Is 
all time yielded back?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield back any time I might have under my control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1876) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1875

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order the Senate will now 
return to the amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 7 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of 
the Senator from Mississippi. We are in a very difficult area, Mr. 
President, because we are really looking in this entire bill at 
perception. It is all based on the perception of the American public as 
to what is acceptable in the form of what kind of favors, funds, gifts, 
gratuities, et cetera, that a Member of Congress should receive.
  Mr. President, after long and arduous and labored deliberation, we 
arrived at the number that is in the substitute. It was not an easy 
decision to make. There were many who disagreed with it. There were 
some who wanted to go to zero. There were some who wanted to go much 
higher. And yet it was the consensus of those involved on both sides of 
the aisle that a $20 gift limit with a $50 aggregate was appropriate.
  How did we arrive at that number, Mr. President? We looked at it as 
what most Americans might believe is a reasonable sum of money.
  I have heard this argument about going back to zero, going to zero 
and not accepting anything. That certainly is a method or course that 
some might pursue. I think it would be a bit uncomfortable not to be 
able to accept a hat or some small memento.
  But let me try to explain what $50--according to this amendment, 
prohibitions of this paragraph did not apply to gifts with a value less 
than $50. At $5 an hour $50 is a 10-hour day. And every single day a 
Member of Congress, Member of the Senate, could receive $50, and if 
that came out to 20 work days in a month, that is $1,000. Now, perhaps 
here in Washington, DC, in this very rarefied environment and 
atmosphere and expensive hotels and expensive restaurants and high cost 
of living $1,000 in 20 days or $50 a day is not a lot of money.
  Mr. President, Arizona is not the poorest State in America. It is not 
the richest. But I will tell you what, if I talked to the men or women 
on the street in Arizona and said, ``Do you think I ought to be able to 
get $50 a day, or $49.95 a day off the cuff every day?'', I do not 
think they would agree with that, Mr. President. They would say, 
``Why?'' They would say, ``Why do I get $50 a day in addition to the 
$139,000 a year that I make?''
  Now, I do not believe, nor does anyone--and we have accepted here in 
this body that $5 and $50 and $500 and $5,000 

[[Page S 10814]]
and $5 million does not corrupt anyone. What we arrived at in the $20 
individual and $50 aggregate was what we thought that the American 
people would believe is a reasonable amount of money, a reasonable 
gift, a reasonable kind of a situation which given the nature of our 
work would be understandable. But very frankly, I would have difficulty 
going back to Arizona and saying, ``By the way, I can accept gifts to 
the tune of $50 a day every single day of the week, day in, day out, 
month in, month out, and none of it aggregates.''
  I have to say to my friend from Mississippi, the aggregation aspect 
of this of $100 is a little bit disingenuous. A little bit 
disingenuous, because anything just below $50 does not have to be 
aggregated. So we are really talking between $50 and $100.
  I understand the argument of the Senator from Mississippi. I 
understand the argument of those who would like to see this higher. I 
understand the argument of those who would like to see it even much 
higher and have no limit whatsoever on the grounds that you cannot put 
a price tag on the vote of a Member of Congress. But I do believe that 
what we are trying to do here is convince the American people that we 
live basically on the same plane that they do. And I do not think they 
would think that the $50 a day, $49.95 a day we could receive in 
gratuities, gifts, other favors is something that they would ever have 
the ability to engage in. I am afraid that if we did that, it would be 
harmful rather than helpful in achieving the goal that this legislation 
contemplates.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Members of the Senate, this is not a 
minor adjustment. The Lott amendment in my view is the most important 
amendment we will be dealing with here. As the Senator from Arizona 
just pointed out, do not let anyone kid you about this one. It is not 
just moving up the executive standard from $50 in aggregate a year to 
$100 a year, it allows a person to take up to $50 a day from the same 
person at least every day of the year, I would say several times every 
day in the year, all year. How do you quantify that? It means one 
lobbyist or other individual could give every Member of the Senate 
$18,250 worth of stuff. And it would not even count. It would not even 
count toward the aggregation of the total of $100. This is a very major 
change from what I think is an excellent compromise.
  I regret having to even say it, because the Senator from Mississippi 
has negotiated in good faith. But this amendment would be a major 
mistake. The Senator from Mississippi calls for a rule of reason. I 
think his amendment is just the opposite.
  First of all, this is very different from the rule that the executive 
operates under very successfully. How different is a Cabinet Member in 
terms of the requests and entreaties they get from a Member of the 
Senate? I do not think that they are that different in that regard. And 
they live by this rule. And if one tries to argue that it is different 
for a legislative body, we in the Wisconsin legislature have lived with 
an even tighter rule than this for the last 20 years, Republicans and 
Democrats alike.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. The executive branch, the entire executive branch rules 
are that it is $20 with an aggregate of $50?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand. And they count every penny. There is no 
de minimis. The de minimis notion is usually under $1 or $2. This 
proposal suggests up to $50 is de minimis. You should not even count 
it. So this does present a very different situation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The way this amendment reads, the Senator from Arizona 
may be interested in this, the last sentence reads ``The prohibitions 
of the paragraph do not apply to gifts with a value of less than $50.''
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That it is. Let me say, for example, if a lobbyist 
wanted to send one Senator a dozen roses every day all year, I think it 
would be legal. Certainly anything up to $50 in terms of roses. Every 
day, all year.
  Let me give just a different kind of example. The Senator from 
Mississippi says it gets ridiculous to have these kinds of rules at 
this level. Well, I will tell you what is ridiculous. What is 
ridiculous is what would be allowed under this amendment. I will use an 
example from my office of one staff member's invitations that he has 
received if the same entity gave these. This is how his week would 
look.
 I think the average citizen would find this ridiculous.

  On Monday, he could have accepted an invitation that was given on 
July 6 to take part in an event that has captured the imagination of 
the Washington region's tennis enthusiasts. This year's Washington 
Tennis Classic includes Andre Agassi and Stefan Edberg. A ticket to a 
tennis event, probably under 50 bucks.
  Tuesday, from the same entity, he can attend a music event, Hootie 
and the Blowfish, a terrific group of artists recording on Atlantic 
Records, at the Merriweather Post Pavilion. That would be allowed from 
the same entity.
  Then on Wednesday, my staff member could go to the special screening 
of ``Don Juan DeMarco'' which includes a cocktail reception and dinner 
at 7 and then seeing the movie before everyone else in the country got 
to see it. That was April 11, 1995.
  If he is not tired at this point of all the entertainment, the same 
lobbyist or individual on Thursday could then treat him to the Cubs 
versus the Phillies, including a special train departing from Union 
Station for Philadelphia and presumably back.
  And then on Friday, winding down for the weekend, the same lobbyist 
then invites the staff member or the Senator to the ``Russian Roulette 
Vodka Tasting'' to kick off the weekend.
  Mr. President, this is what the Lott amendment will allow, and I 
believe in almost every one of these instances, it could be up to $50 
and not a dime or a shot of the vodka will count toward the $100 
aggregate. Even though this is not quite as bad, certainly, as the 
original McConnell substitute, it still provides an enormous loophole 
that will preserve, in large part, this lifestyle we are trying to 
eliminate. I suggest the body soundly--soundly--reject this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Michigan, 
I do not know that I need that much time, because I feel, like the 
Senator from Wisconsin, covered the ground in a very thorough way.
  Initially, we had in the original bill, the McConnell-Dole bill--what 
was the aggregate on the original version?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. The amount was under $100. There was no aggregate under 
the original version.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Under $100, no aggregate.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. No, that did not have to be counted.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Now we have this amendment which is just barely an 
improvement. My colleague from Wisconsin said the original proposal was 
under $100, no aggregate, all you can eat. This reads, ``The 
prohibitions of this paragraph do not apply to gifts with value of less 
than $50.''
  Mr. President, Senators should be clear about the vote. What this is 
saying is that you would like for a lobbyist to be able to on any 
number of occasions----
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for an observation?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me say, I listened carefully to the suggestion 
from both the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Minnesota as 
to what could arguably be under the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Mississippi with regard to $50-$100. Yes, I agree that is 
possible, but anyone who did that would be before the Ethics Committee 
and be in a lot of trouble. 

[[Page S 10815]]

  The Ethics Committee has frequently acted against Senators who have 
engaged in improper conduct, even when it did not violate a specific 
provision of the rules of the Senate Committee on Ethics or, for that 
matter, the rules of the Senate.
  So we do not fail to go forward if there is clear and obvious 
misconduct. I will concede to my friends from Wisconsin and Minnesota--
--
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I was pleased to yield for a question. I think the 
Senator's comments are helpful. I wonder if I could get some time on 
the other side. We have little time left.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Since I was making a statement and not asking a 
question, I will let the Senator finish.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I think the Senator's comments are important. I do not 
want to cut him off, but I want to reserve what time I have left.
  My point is really simple. I just think that this may be the most 
important vote of all because, again, we ought to just let go of this. 
And for people in Minnesota, it is just not credible to say, ``We 
passed important reform on the taking of gifts.'' ``What was it?'' 
``Well, we could take a gift on many occasions from a lobbyist as long 
as it was under $50 and it would never apply to any limit.''
  People will just laugh at that. That is not reform. That is my first 
point.
  My second point, Mr. President, which may or may not move colleagues, 
but I would like to talk about the flip side of the coin. It does seem 
to me, Mr. President, that for a lot of people in Minnesota, a lot of 
hard-pressed people, we cut the low-income energy assistance in the 
House of Representatives. They eliminated it. There are a lot of wage 
earners, there are a lot of senior citizens, there are a lot of 
students, there are a lot of farmers, there are a lot of neighborhood 
people in the cities, there are a lot of regular people who cannot 
afford to take us out for $50. Where do they fit into this equation? 
Maybe they have a shot at taking us out for $20, so that we go out to 
dinner with them and not just with lobbyists. Let us have a little 
equality here, and that is the second part of my argument.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute left.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the rest of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan has 
13 minutes and 54 seconds; the Senator from Mississippi has 16 minutes 
and 10 seconds.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Five minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield 5 minutes, and more, if he needs it, to the Senator 
from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I just want to make clear that any 
Member of the Senate who chose to take multiple gifts under $50, the 
hypothetical that my friends from Wisconsin and Minnesota could very 
legitimately claim is possible under a plain reading of the Lott 
amendment, would necessarily be in serious trouble before the Ethics 
Committee.
  There is no question that under section 2(A)(1) of the rules of the 
Select Committee on Ethics that that would be considered improper 
conduct. Under the Senate Code of Conduct, subsection (A), I think it 
would clearly constitute misconduct.
  I just want to assure my friend, reasonable people can differ about 
the propriety of this amendment, but I did not want it left unrebutted 
that one could engage in the kind of conduct that a plain reading of 
the Lott amendment might seem to permit when, in fact, it would be a 
clear violation of the kind of standards that we all know apply in the 
Senate.
  I strongly recommend, as chairman of the committee, that whether the 
limit is put at $20 or whether it is put at $50, below which there is 
no aggregation, anybody who engages in that kind of blatant effort to 
circumvent the rule is going to have a very, very serious case before 
the Ethics Committee.
  I suggest they get themselves a good lawyer because the chances are 
they are likely to get censured.
  I thank the Chair very much. I thank my friend from Minnesota. I 
think it is important that we clear this up, that one could engage in 
this kind of conduct with impunity and expect not to be in deep, deep 
trouble.
  Mr. LOTT. Absolutely, and if the Senator will yield, I appreciate him 
speaking up as chairman of the Ethics Committee in pointing this out. 
Also, I think it would be important that we note in the underlying bill 
that we are working on now, the substitute, a lot of discussion went 
into the fact that good faith is an important part of this. In fact, it 
talks about ``and in good faith believes to have a value of less 
than''; ``no formal recordkeeping is required, but a Member, officer, 
employee shall make a good-faith effort to comply with this 
paragraph.''
  I think that language is very basic to what we are trying to do. If 
you really want to slight these rules, you probably can. We all ought 
to act in good faith. I know the Senate will do that. If we do some of 
the things outlined by some of the others, Senators will certainly have 
to answer to the Senate Ethics Committee.
  I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, be added as an original cosponsor of my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to quickly respond to the 
statement of the Senator from Kentucky that the Ethics Committee 
certainly would take action against somebody who took a prime rib and a 
martini every day from the same individual. I do not understand that. 
This rule would simply say that that is fine. This rule would say that 
it does not come as a gift under the Senate rules if you took that for 
under $50 a day.
  I cannot believe that there would be a very strong case before the 
Ethics Committee if that Senator were able to say: You voted and passed 
a rule that explicitly permits this. It is very unlikely that I or any 
member of the public is going to believe that that is sufficient. It is 
going to be legal under the Senate rules to have a very nice dinner, or 
at least a pretty nice dinner, and very nice lunch every single day of 
the year from the same lobbyist--actually, several times a day. This is 
completely unacceptable, in terms of what we can call reform. It is not 
sufficient to say the Ethics Committee is going to be able to slam the 
hammer down when all the Senator has to do is say the Senate expressly 
permitted it under this rule.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  First, let me comment on the point just made by the Senator from 
Wisconsin. I also do not understand how it can be argued in this 
amendment offered by my friend from Mississippi that gifts under $50 
might somehow or other be limited, even though the amendment says there 
is no limit.
  The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi says, ``The 
prohibitions of this paragraph do not apply to gifts with a value of 
less than $50.'' We talk about putting Members of the Senate in 
jeopardy with vague language. I do not know how it can then be argued 
by supporters of the amendment that, yes, maybe they do. Maybe the 
prohibitions of this paragraph do apply to gifts if given repeatedly in 
multiples, day after day. The language is pretty clear. You do not 
aggregate gifts. The prohibitions do not apply to gifts with a value of 
less than $50.
  It seems to me that that is one of the fundamental flaws of this 
particular amendment--that the gifts are not aggregated, and that means 
you can have a gift each day of under $50 from the same source. And 
according to the language, the prohibitions of this paragraph do not 
apply.
  Second, it seems to me we have a precedent for this $20 rule. That is 
the executive branch. And, by the way, the executive branch also 
aggregates gifts of under $20, as does the McCain substitute.
  So we have a precedent in two ways. The executive branch rule reads 
as follows: ``An employee may accept unsolicited gifts having an 
aggregate market value of $20 or less per occasion''-- That is the $20 
rule--``provided that 

[[Page S 10816]]
the aggregate market value of individual gifts received from any one 
person under the authority of this paragraph shall not exceed $50 in a 
calendar year.'' That is the $50 aggregate rule. So in the executive 
branch rules, which they have lived with successfully, we have 
precedent for both parts of this rule in the McCain substitute, both a 
$20 limit and the $50 aggregate.
  Now, what we also do in the substitute is something very important. 
We avoid the recordkeeping. One of the problems with any aggregate is 
what about recordkeeping. Unless you say it is not necessary, you can 
run into a problem with recordkeeping because it simply is a cumbersome 
requirement if you have to keep records. So in the substitute it says, 
``No formal recordkeeping is required by this paragraph, but a Member, 
officer, employee, shall make a good-faith effort to comply with the 
paragraph.'' We leave it up to the good faith of the Member to comply 
with the $50 aggregate rule.
  Mr. President, this is a very significant change in the substitute. 
If this amendment passes, we are going to be pretty close to business 
as usual, because a $50 rule allows for the lunches and for the 
suppers, and if do you not aggregate gifts under $50, you have the 
situation where basically the gifts under $50 are unlimited. In both 
respects, it is much too close to business as usual.
  Now, is it a change from $100? Yes, it is. I am the first to concede 
that. But does it come close to where we should be as an institution? I 
am afraid not. Therefore, I do hope that we will defeat this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are ready for another unanimous-consent 
agreement that is very important. I would like to do that at this 
point, and then Senator McConnell and Senator McCain may have some 
comments.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes 
its business today, it stand in recess until 9 a.m., and at 9 a.m., 
there be 10 minutes for debate, to be equally divided on the Murkowski 
amendment, and the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the 
Murkowski amendment No. 1874.
  I further ask that following the Murkowski vote, there be 10 minutes 
for debate, to be equally divided, to be followed by a vote on or in 
relation to the Lott amendment regarding limits, and that following the 
conclusion of the vote on the Lott-Breaux limits amendment, Senator 
Byrd be recognized to offer his amendment, on which there will be 45 
minutes, to be divided, with 40 minutes under the control of the 
Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and 5 minutes under the 
control of Senator McConnell, with a vote to occur on the Byrd 
amendment following the conclusion of the debate.
  I further ask that following the disposition of the Byrd amendment, 
Senator Rockefeller be recognized to offer his amendment, and, if 
offered, limited to 10 minutes, to be equally divided in the usual 
form; following that debate, the Senate proceed to vote on or in 
relation to the Rockefeller amendment.
  I further ask that following the disposition of the Rockefeller 
amendment, Senator Wellstone be recognized to offer his amendment, on 
which there would be 1 hour of debate, to be equally divided, to be 
followed by a vote on or in relation to the Wellstone amendment.
  I further ask that following the disposition of the Wellstone 
amendment, Senator Dole be recognized to offer his amendment, on which 
there will be 5 minutes under the control of Senator Dole and 30 
minutes under the control of Senator Levin, to be followed by a vote on 
or in relation to the Dole amendment.
  I further ask that following the disposition of the Dole amendment, 
the Senate proceed to the closing debate, to be followed by third 
reading and final passage, as provided in the previous consent 
agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator McConnell.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I probably will not take 5 minutes. 
Again, at risk of being redundant, I do not want to leave anybody in 
the Senate, or out in the country, who cares about this issue with the 
impression that one could accept repetitious meals or gifts of any 
sort, day after day after day, and not be in serious trouble.
  In fact, Mr. President, it is interesting to note that some of the 
most famous ethics cases in recent years have not been a violation of 
Senate rules. The current case before us that everyone is quite 
familiar with--certainly, I am--with regard to the Senator from Oregon, 
some of the charges relate to allegations of sexual misconduct. In 
fact, those are not technically a violation of Senate rules. But I 
think we would all agree it is a very serious case. The Keating Five 
case involved largely no violations of Senate rules. In fact, the 
Senate adopted a new rule after the Keating case, rule 43.
  So regardless of how people may feel about whether the limit should 
be set at $20 and $50, or $50 and $100, I want to assure the Senate and 
the public, as chairman of the Ethics Committee, that anybody who took 
repetitious gifts carefully crafted to circumvent the spirit of this 
limit, whether it is set at $20 or $50, is in a heck of a lot of 
trouble. And a candidate for censure. Certainly, the argument can be 
made that it is technically possible. But, as a practical matter, 
anybody who did that would be in very serious trouble and would have 
obviously violated the standards that we all accept as appropriate as 
behavior of Senators.
  I just wanted to make certain that everybody had a clear 
understanding that nobody--certainly not Senator Lott or Senator 
Breaux--is suggesting that this is the kind of thing that would be 
tolerated by the adoption of the $50 to $100 option.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield the remainder of my 
time or any portion thereof that the Senator from Arizona needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not intend to take more than 2 or 3 
minutes here.
  Perhaps the Senator from Kentucky is correct in that if someone, day 
after day, week after week, took $50 or $49.95 from the same person, 
that would be viewed as conduct unbecoming to a Member of the U.S. 
Senate.
  Now we will talk about reality, Mr. President. The reality now is, 
day in day out, week after week, month after month, people do take from 
different sources--from different sources--significant amounts, in 
favors, meals, et cetera. It goes on all the time. We know it.
  No, I do not believe that someone would take $50 a day from the same 
person. But I sure as heck do believe that someone would take $49.95 
from a whole lot of different people.
  Mr. President, just look at the gifts that come into our office on a 
daily basis. Look at it at Christmas time. Federal Express finds the 
Capitol to be the busiest place for them to go. There are baskets and 
all kinds of things that come in.
  What is wrong with that? Nothing, except that we live differently 
from the rest of the American people. And the American people want us 
to live like they do. I do not know any average citizen in the State of 
Arizona who gets gratuities or meals, or whatever it is, to the tune of 
approaching $50 a day. I do not know of any. Not even business 
executives. No one, except we here in Congress.
  Mr. President, the American people want us to live like they do. 
Perhaps, as Senator Stevens said, in the grand days of the U.S. Senate, 
when I was not here and there were not problems and people lived a 
certain way, that was a different era.
  It was articulated again over in the 1994 election. Turn on your talk 
radio anywhere in America. They believe that the Congress lives 
differently than they do, that we do not understand their everyday 
problems and issues and challenges because we live differently. They 
want us to live like them.
  Yes, as the Senator from Mississippi said, we could go to zero, I 
guess. That may be a move that would be made if this one is defeated. I 
do not think that is appropriate. I think that $20 with an aggregate of 
$50 is appropriate.
  I think most Americans would think that was appropriate. I do not 
believe, I just do not believe, that $50 a day 

[[Page S 10817]]
unending, from different sources, is what the American people think 
they could ever attain, and they do not think that we should live in 
that fashion.
  This is, as the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator from Minnesota, 
and the Senator from Michigan said, this is a very, very important 
amendment, because if we do pass this amendment, then it is 
fundamentally business as usual.
  I do not think that this whole exercise was about business as usual. 
I think that the 1994 election was about change. I think this is one of 
the changes. This is not the most earth-shaking change. This is not up 
there with the balanced budget amendment. It will not be the end of the 
world if it fails.
  But, Mr. President, there is an erosion in confidence on the part of 
the American people in Congress. I saw a poll not too long ago that 19 
percent of the American people believe that Congress can be counted on 
to do the right thing some of the time--some of the time. I do not 
think it was an accident that the U.S. Senate--I believe the first act 
we passed was unfunded mandates; and the second was--what? Put Congress 
under the rules that the American people live by. The laws that we pass 
that apply to them apply to us.
  It seems to me that this amendment again removes us from the average 
American into a rather rarefied stratosphere in which very few other 
Americans are able to circulate.
  Mr. President, I hope we will defeat this amendment. I do not 
underestimate how important this amendment is. I thank the Senator from 
Michigan for yielding me time. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may be consumed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think the Senate would function a lot 
better if, in fact, we did live more like ordinary citizens with 
families. Maybe it would be a good idea if we begin by being home at 
night. That is where most Americans are today. They are at home with 
their kids and their wives and their husbands. They are living like 
normal human beings. And here we are. Where were we last night? We were 
here. Where were we the night before? We were here.
  Now, I want to meet the Senator that is having lunch and dinner every 
day of the week around here. It does not happen. We come back in here, 
most of us come flying in from Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kentucky, 
Mississippi, all the way from Arizona, we get here in the afternoon on 
Monday and gripe like the devil if we have a vote before 6 o'clock on 
Monday. It would be good enough if we worked on Monday morning like 
average citizens, instead of Monday night. So, we get here in the 
afternoon, and we are in session. We do not start voting until 5 
o'clock or 6 o'clock.
  When are Senators going to go to dinner? Senators are here voting. 
OK, Tuesday--Tuesday we have policy luncheons. We all eat together. 
Democrats eat at their policy luncheon, and we eat at ours. There ain't 
no luncheon.
  And at night we are here. Maybe the average Member, at least in my 
case, I get roped or rooked into having to go to dinner maybe once a 
week. I am doing better now. It is more like once every 2 weeks. So I 
do not have lunches off of Capitol Hill hardly ever. I eat up here with 
my colleagues. A lot of the time we are doing business and enjoying 
each other's company a little bit.
  The idea that we can be bought for a steak but not for a hamburger, I 
do not understand that. I like hamburgers better anyway. It is OK if 
Members go out to a luncheon and get hamburgers, but it is not OK if 
Members go to dinner and have a steak. Give me a break.
  Again, I am arguing we should be reasonable and rational. This $20 
limit is not rational. The inference is Members can go for steak for 
dinner every night. I guess Members could go out to an $18 chicken 
luncheon every day.
  I realize the language has good faith in there. I think good faith 
applies to the $50 limit like it does to the $20 limit. We are not 
going to be going out pressing the limit every day. We are going to act 
in good faith. We are all acting in good faith.
  I want to make this point. This amendment that would put the limit at 
$50 with the aggregate of $100 is different, fundamentally different, 
big time different from the existing law which says Members report if 
it is over $100 and the limit is $250, and meals are exempted always--
which they should be.
  Now, I do not believe anybody can be bought for a meal or a bunch of 
meals. That is ridiculous. So, we are making a big change from $100 and 
$250 limit, down to $50 and $100.
  This amendment is not about business as usual. And business as usual 
around here is not that Senators go out and get bought for a $50 gift 
or a $50 or $60 steak dinner. We should have tight rules. We should be 
careful. We should watch out for the image and the perception of this 
institution, because we all are affected by the misconduct of only one. 
But we should not put ourselves in a position where we cannot comply 
with logical rules, and where we cannot have free and normal contact, 
at least with our constituents. Most people think you are talking about 
limiting all those big-time slick-suited Washington lawyer-lobbyists. 
This limits, also, how we can interact with our constituents from down 
home--or up home, if you are from up North.
  We have made a lot of progress. I think we will be better off with 
this bill. But I think if we go with this $20 and $50 limit, it will be 
trouble.
  Mr. President, I have no further requests for time. I believe all 
time is about expired or has been yielded back.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have not yielded back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 3 minutes 27 
seconds remaining, and the Senator from Mississippi has 2 minutes 3 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time unless we 
are ready to yield our time, I say to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I do not know of anybody on our side who 
wishes to use any of the time. I will just yield myself 30 seconds to 
say, wherever you draw a line, someone is going to argue that we cannot 
be bought for $20, we cannot be bought for $50, we cannot be bought for 
$100--wherever you draw the line. The question is, we have to draw a 
line and we have to draw it a lot lower than where the line is 
currently drawn because it is too loose. It is unlimited meals, it is 
unlimited tickets, it is recreational travel. We have to draw much 
tighter lines.
  We have a precedent in the executive branch. There is a $20 gift 
rule. It has not created any big problems. It works. And they do 
aggregate. That means gifts under $20 count toward the aggregate limit 
of $50. That is our substitute. It is based on that pattern. It works. 
It has not gotten folks into trouble.
  It seems to me, if the executive branch can function as they have 
with a $20 limit and gifts below $20 counting towards a $50 aggregate, 
we ought to be able to live under that limit as well.
  I yield the remainder of my time and I do ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Harkin be added as a cosponsor to the pending substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1877

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I have a technical amendment to change some 
language on page 16, line 25. I have cleared this with the majority 
leader, the majority whip, chairman of the Ethics Committee, all those 
who are cosponsors. I think I have cleared it.
  So I ask unanimous consent that I might offer an amendment at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. 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 Kentucky [Mr. Ford] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1877.


[[Page S 10818]]

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 16 of the McCain substitute on line 25 insert after 
     ``shall take effect on'' the following: ``and be effective 
     for calendar years beginning on''.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is just a technical amendment that 
changes the language on that line and page. I have cleared it all. I 
will not debate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Has this been agreed to?
  Mr. FORD. Not yet.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1877) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wanted to thank the Senator from 
Kentucky and the Senator from Mississippi, my friends from Minnesota 
and Wisconsin as well as the Senator from Michigan. This is a very 
contentious issue. A great deal of emotion has been associated with it. 
I think we have addressed the issues tonight in an informative and not 
exactly emotionless, but certainly a professional, manner.
  I thank all of them for their contributions. And I again thank the 
staff on both sides of the aisle for I think very important 
contributions.
  I thank my friend from Mississippi for his indulgence.

                          ____________________