[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 124 (Friday, July 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10845-S10858]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CONGRESSIONAL GIFT REFORM ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now resume consideration of S. 1061, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       McCain modified amendment No. 1872, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Murkowski amendment No. 1874 (to amendment No. 1872), to 
     permit reimbursement for travel and lodging at charitable 
     political events.
       Lott amendment No. 1875 (to amendment No. 1872), to change 
     the maximum total value of gifts that can be accepted from a 
     single source in 1 year from $50 to $100.


                           Amendment No. 1874

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will now 
be 10 minutes of debate on the Murkowski amendment No. 1874.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the two amendments that we are going to be 
voting on early this morning really go to the heart of the efforts that 
we are making to reform gifts. And those issues are the recreational 
trips and the meals and the tickets which are given to Members of this 
body.
  So while we have narrowed the differences significantly--and we 
have--we still are confronted with the really principal issues which 
have brought us to this point; and that is the recreational travel, the 
golf outings, the ski trips, and the tennis trips that are provided as 
so-called charitable travel but which is a significant recreational 
benefit to us. As a matter of fact, this travel is defined as 
substantially recreation. That is the first amendment that we will be 
voting on. It is the Murkowski amendment, which will be to allow that 
kind of recreational travel to Members of this body to be reimbursed by 
private interests for that travel.
  What the public has seen and read and heard about are these trips 
that we are offered also benefit a charity. There are two beneficiaries 
of these trips. A charity benefits when we show up, and we benefit by 
being given a couple of days and nights and fancy lodging, and being 
given fancy meals and being paid the transportation to get there. That 
is a substantial gift to Members. Yes, a charity also benefits. But the 
price that we pay to benefit the charity is the diminution, the 
reduction of the public confidence in this institution by the benefit 
that is received by Members from this recreational travel, which is 
significant. It is like a paid vacation that we are given at the same 
time there is a charitable contribution that is also made by the 
corporate sponsors. And we should give it up. We simply should give it 
up. It has reduced public confidence in this institution.
  We have transcripts of television shows that are available to Members 
to read if they want to see what this looks like to the general public.
  So I hope we will defeat the Murkowski amendment, which is the first 
amendment that we will be voting on this morning.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCain). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, good morning. My colleagues, good 
morning.
  Mr. President, the amendment that we are going to be voting on very 
shortly provides the same rules for transportation and lodging in 
connection with charitable events as the bill provides for political 
events. That is all it does. It just conforms the two--political vis-a-
vis charitable events.
  Mr. President, much of this debate has been about public perception, 
that somehow we in Washington are being bought and sold by lobbyists, 
PAC's, and so forth; if we spend a weekend at 

[[Page S 10846]]
a charitable event which includes lobbyists, that somehow we become 
polluted with corruption, or so goes the myth. There have been 
television programs directed at this. But at the same time, there is 
nothing wrong with Members of this body receiving lobbyist money paying 
for Senators' meals, Senators' lodging, Senators' transportation at a 
political fundraiser in Hollywood, in Florida, and you name it.
  I ask, Mr. President, are we going to sell that bill of malarkey to 
the American public? I do not think so. It is OK for a lobbyist's money 
to pay us for travel to fundraisers and PAC's but it is not OK for 
lobbyist money to be used for travel to an event that will benefit 
breast cancer screening or poor children in need of medical attention.
  Mr. President, my amendment simply provides that Senators would be 
permitted to be privately reimbursed for the costs of lodging and 
transportation in connection with a charitable fundraising event, 
only--and I repeat ``only''--if the Senate Select Committee on Ethics 
determines that participating in the charity event is in the interest 
of the Senate and in the interest of the United States.
  I think we have a clear choice. Do we want to establish the same 
lodging and transportation rules for charitable fundraisers as we have 
for political fundraising, or do we want to make it harder, harder to 
raise money for worthy charities?
  The inconsistency here is an obvious one. The rule says as proposed 
in the compromise that there will be no reimbursement for charity 
events if it is associated with recreation. Yet, make no mistake about 
it, Mr. President, the loophole is this: You can have a political 
fundraiser for yourself, reimburse Members for travel to that political 
fundraiser and you can have a charity event, too, and have the proceeds 
go to the charity.
  Let us not kid ourselves. What is the source of funds for these 
events? The source of funds is the same groups, the politicians, 
political action committees, the PAC's, and so forth.
  Now, I had intended to offer another amendment which would have 
required Members to pay out of their own pocket for travel and lodging 
for political events like they propose now for charity events. I 
decided not to pursue that because in reality that belongs in the 
campaign reform effort which is going to be underway at some point in 
time, and I intend to pursue it at that time.
  We are not kidding ourselves. We are not kidding the American public. 
We are simply involved in a bit of a charade here. A significant 
portion of it is worthwhile. This reform is needed. As far as 
eliminating reimbursement for travel and lodging associated with 
charitable events and still allowing for political events when the 
funds came from the same source is the hypocrisy the Senator from 
Alaska wants to point out and wants to remind all Members as they look 
at how they are going to vote on the Murkowski amendment.
   I encourage them to recognize that significant difference. Members 
go out, establish a political event, reimburse other Members for travel 
and transportation. The source of the funds comes from the PAC's and 
the lobbyists. And they can put on a charity event with it. Perhaps 
that is what the membership wants. But I suggest the American public is 
going to question whether we have gone all the way here or whether we 
have left a loophole.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Alaska has 
expired. The Senator from Michigan has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to my friend from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. President, I want my colleagues to know we went through this last 
night in, I think, rather extensive debate. A Senator certainly can 
attend charitable events, no question about it. The issue is the 
recreational travel. What this vote is about is just one issue, and the 
issue is this: It does not serve this institution well, it does not 
serve any of us as individual Senators well, when lobbyists pay for 
Senators and their spouses or their family to go on weekend golf, 
tennis, skiing, or fishing trips. It is inappropriate. We ought not to 
be taking these gifts. People in the country do not think it is right. 
We should not think it is right, and I certainly hope that this 
amendment by the Senator from Alaska will be voted down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 1 minute 2 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will reserve that.
  Is there any time remaining on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining on the other side. 
The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me conclude by saying this is one of the two issues 
that has brought us to this point. This recreational travel is a 
significant gift to us. Yes, there is also a benefit to the charity, 
but it is the gift to us which is the issue under our gift rules.
  If we are going to significantly change the way we do business, this 
is one of the two areas where we must make a change, the so-called 
recreational travel. The charities have great appeals. They should be 
supported; they can be supported, but they must not be supported in a 
way which undermines public confidence in this institution. And that is 
the issue which we will be voting on with the Murkowski amendment. It 
is the public confidence in this institution, the gifts which we get, 
which is the issue.
  I hope this amendment will be defeated. I yield back the remainder of 
my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, under the previous 
order, the question occurs now on agreeing to amendment No. 1874 
offered by the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski]. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 339 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pryor
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--60

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Stevens
       
  So the amendment (No. 1874) was rejected.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1875

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment numbered 1875 offered by the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Debate on the amendment is limited to 10 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Michigan, Senator Levin.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have come this far on gift reform, and 
we should not turn back now on one of the central issues which are the 
tickets and the meals.
  Mr. President, we have now made a significant decision in the area of 
gifts. 

[[Page S 10847]]
We have come a significant way. Now we must not turn back. We really 
must address the question of the tickets and the meals.
  We cannot be bought for $100, $50, or $20. I do not think we could be 
bought for $1 million.
  If we will give up the tickets and the meals, the way we have now 
given up the recreational travel, we can contribute something. We can 
give something of immeasurable value to this democracy of ours. We can 
add to public confidence in our democratic institutions.
  This public confidence has been eroded. We can help to restore it, if 
we will now take this step which basically addresses the tickets and 
the meals.
  The executive branch has a $20 gift rule and a $50 total that anyone 
can give. This would follow the executive branch rule. If they can live 
under it, I believe we also can live under it. I hope this amendment is 
defeated.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in support of the amendment, I yield our 5 
minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, so that he can 
make a statement on this, in support of this amendment.
  We will vote to see if we have any vestiges of self-respect left.
  Mr. BREAUX. I yield myself 3 minutes of my 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, the issue before the Senate, I think, is very, very 
clear. Mr. President, and my colleagues, this legislation, make no 
bones about it, makes major, dramatic changes in how we are going to 
conduct the daily lives of Members of this body.
  Essentially, today, meals are exempt from any kind of a gift ban or 
limitation. We all have meals and lunches with our constituents and 
with people who do business here in Washington. Essentially, those 
events are exempt from any ban today.
  This legislation, for the first time, says meals are going to be 
included. If that meal costs $21, Members will find themselves before 
the Ethics Committee, answering a charge that they have violated this 
rule.
  I say to my colleagues that is not sound policy. The Ethics Committee 
has a lot of work to do. They should not be going over lunch tabs and 
dinner tickets, to make sure that the tab, the tax, and the tip, does 
not somehow add up to $21.
  That is what the McCain-Wellstone bill provides for. I suggest that 
we, I think, are smarter than that. Our constituents are smarter than 
that.
  Every year in my State of Louisiana, the Shreveport Chamber of 
Commerce comes up. They have a luncheon. They invite Senator Johnston. 
They have a dinner. They invite myself. Next year, they will reverse 
the order. That meal is probably going to cost more than $20. They are 
having that meal for us to talk about things of interest to that city 
and my State.
  Every year the Louisiana Municipal Association comes up and takes us 
out to dinner. That meal is going to cost more than $20.
  I suggest to the Members of this body, as it has been said so many 
times before, we are not going to be bought for $21. We have to be 
reasonable. We have to be practical. If we vote like our constituents 
want us to vote, a $21 meal is not going to make the difference.
  Our legislation simply says $50 for a gift limitation. You cannot 
take it when it adds up to over $100 in a year. Therefore, a meal that 
is $50--a lunch, a dinner, anything under that--is not prohibited. If 
you add $51, that is prohibited. The maximum would be $100 in a year.
  Some say Members go to dinner every night for 365 days and they could 
give you $18,000 a year. If anybody goes to dinner with the same person 
every night for 365 some days, I suggest they are idiots and should not 
be in the Senate in the first place.
  Under their legislation, Members could go every night for $20 and 
spend $7,350. Is that all right? Are we playing games with our self-
respect, our ability to know what is right and what is wrong? And more 
importantly, to allow our constituents to know what is right and what 
is wrong.
  I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, recently I was along with some of my 
colleagues and was invited to hear the President of France at a one-
table luncheon at the French Embassy on the subject of Bosnia 
principally; to the British Embassy, to hear Douglas Hurd, the Foreign 
Minister of Britain, speak about foreign matters in general. Both were, 
I thought, very important dinners. Both would clearly have exceeded the 
$20. Would this be prohibited under the $20 rule?
  Mr. BREAUX. Any gift Members receive that is over $20, that includes 
a meal, would be prohibited under the legislation.
  I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to take 1 minute to get the 
attention of my colleagues on an argument that was made last night, and 
hopefully not many were here.
  That was this suggestion that my friend from Louisiana made that a 
Senator could go out every night for a whole year and rack up $18,000 
in bills under this amendment. That is technically true. Of course, as 
the Senator from Louisiana pointed out, it is technically true that 
under the alternative Members could rack up $7,000 in bills.
  The point I want Members to know is that anybody who did that would 
have a serious case before the Ethics Committee. The fact that it might 
not be a technical violation of the rule does not mean that it is 
proper conduct. It would be clearly improper conduct.
  Some of the major cases that we have had here in the Senate in the 
last few years have not been technical violations of the rules. They 
still have been major cases. That was the case in the Keating case. It 
is the case with some of the charges against the Senator from Oregon--
not technical violations of the rules, but still a very serious case.
  I want Members to know that anybody who tried to exploit this rule, 
in this way, would be in very, very, serious trouble.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The other 
side has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, a very serious mistake of fact has been 
made on the floor about the bill. The last two speakers said under our 
bill you could take up to $7,000 a year. That is absolutely false. 
Under our bill, the most you could take from one individual is $50, the 
executive rule. Under the amendment here, it would be at least $18,500 
for, obviously, a wrongdoer. That is a fact.
  The difference is that the current McCain provision has an aggregate 
limit and the provision provided by the other side on this has no 
aggregate. So one person, several times a day, could give up to $50 a 
day and that does not count. And there is no aggregation. That is a 
fact. That is exactly the difference between the two, and any other 
suggestion means somebody has not read the difference between the 
amendments.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Minnesota, Senator 
Wellstone.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could just get the attention of my 
colleagues.
  Mr. President, let me just emphasize what the Senator from Wisconsin 
said. Fact No. 1 is that people in the country just think it is 
inappropriate when it comes to the meals and the tickets. They think we 
should let go of it. And we should, if we want to restore confidence.
  Fact No. 2, this amendment says that you can go out for a meal or you 
can take a ticket or whatever, and as long as it is under $50 you can 
keep receiving the same gift from a lobbyist in perpetuity. There is no 
limit. There is no $100 limit.
  Senators, you cannot tell people we are making a reform, you cannot 
tell people we are putting an end to this practice, with this kind of 
huge loophole. It is not credible. It will not work. This amendment is 
deeply flawed and is not a reform.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute and 20 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is really all about, this entire 
legislation 

[[Page S 10848]]
is about establishing confidence. I do not think there is any doubt the 
American people do not believe we live like they do. I do not think 
there is any doubt that the confidence and esteem in which we are held 
is not at the level that we want it to be.
  I believe if this amendment is agreed to, the perception will be that 
$50 a day, unrecorded, unaggregated, will indeed be a privilege that 
most Americans do not enjoy.
  It is not really much more complicated than that. As the Senator from 
Michigan pointed out, can Senators be bought for $20 or $50 or $100 or 
$200? That is not the argument here. The argument here is whether we 
will live like the rest of the American people do, and that, for most 
citizens, is not the ability to receive as much as $50 a day in some 
kinds of benefits.
  We believe the original legislation is far more appropriate. There 
are those who would argue for zero dollars. I believe what we have 
crafted is the appropriate method and I do not believe this is about 
buying and selling of Members of Congress.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 1875

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
amendment 1875, offered by the Senator from Mississippi.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 340 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--46

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pressler
     Robb
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 1875) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia, Senator Byrd, is recognized to offer an amendment on 
which there shall be 45 minutes of debate.
  Will the Senate please be in order.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, my time will not begin to run until I offer the 
amendment, and I insist upon order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. May we have order. 
Senators will please take their conversations to the Cloakroom. May we 
have order in the Senate.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I know order when I see order in the Senate, and we do 
not have it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. There is no better way 
to describe it. We know it when we see it.
  May we have order, please. The Senators on my right, find another 
place to converse. The Senators over here, please find another place.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the gavel has only been broken once, and it 
was replaced with a new gavel. And it might be well perhaps even to 
break it again. When the Chair calls for order, the Chair should be 
respected. I know we are all prone to talk a little bit. We like to see 
our colleagues during the rollcalls. I do the same thing. But if the 
Chair will crack that gavel and let us know that the Chair wants order, 
he should have it.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleagues.
  (Mr. COVERDELL assumed the chair).
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the bill before us today, S. 1061, is 
designed to strengthen the standing rules of the Senate regarding the 
acceptance of gifts by Members and staff. Accordingly, it is meant to 
confront the public's perception that Members of the Senate can somehow 
be influenced for the price of a lunch. That is really pretty silly, 
but nevertheless that may be the perception. I, for one, do not believe 
that to be true. But perception, as we all know, is sometimes 
overpowering.
  Indeed, Marie Antoinette may never have actually said, ``Let them eat 
cake,'' but the fact remains that, in 1793, the people of Paris 
believed that Marie Antoinette said, ``Let them eat cake.'' So, let us 
not be fooled. Perception matters, and, whether we like it or not, it 
must be dealt with.
  It is to that end, the righting of public perception, that I am 
offering this amendment. Quite simply, my amendment states that it is 
the sense of the Senate that the Judicial Conference of the United 
States--as the Senate is doing in relation to itself in the pending 
measure--should review and reevaluate its gift rules, including the 
acceptance of travel and travel-related expenses, and that those 
regulations should cover all judicial branch employees, including 
members of the Supreme Court.
  Like the legislative branch, the judicial branch of Government cannot 
afford to be seen in the eyes of the public as anything less than 
impartial and unbiased. The great tenet of our judicial system, that 
all Americans enjoy ``equal justice under the law,'' cannot be brought 
into question if we are to maintain a society based on the rule of law. 
Therefore, if it is important for the men and women who make the laws 
to be above reproach--and it is important--then it only makes sense 
that it is equally important for the men and women who interpret those 
laws to be similarly above reproach.
  In truth, one could argue that it is even more important for the 
judiciary to undertake a reevaluation and strengthening of its rules 
since the very individuals addressed in this amendment are people who, 
once confirmed by the Senate, retain lifetime tenure. Federal judges do 
not stand for reelection every 2 years or every 6 years as do Members 
of the House and Senate. On the contrary, unless they are impeached in 
the House and convicted in the Senate, Federal judges may hold their 
positions for life, health permitting. Their behavior and their moral 
authority as adjudicators of great issues are not subject to a public 
vote of confidence.
  Mr. President, public acceptance and support of the decisions of our 
courts depends entirely on an independent and impartial judiciary. The 
decisions of the Federal courts must not be tarnished by even the 
slightest hint of impropriety, because the men and women who sit in 
judgment are charged with deciding the most momentous questions--
questions that go to the very heart of our liberties. They decide 
questions involving freedom of
 speech and freedom of religion under the first amendment. They protect 
our constitutional rights to due process, our rights of privacy, and 
our rights to the pursuit of happiness in a free and open society. And 
they adjudicate controversies, the impact of which may mean millions or 
even billions of dollars to the individuals and corporations involved. 
Because of that authority and extraordinary power, the judicial branch, 
more so than even the other two branches of government, must hold and 
retain the utmost confidence of the American people.

  Unfortunately, Mr. President, there have been reports that some 
members of our Federal courts have availed themselves of trips 
sponsored and paid for by a corporation that was involved 

[[Page S 10849]]
in litigation in those courts. I am going to read now from a March 5, 
1995, newspaper story that appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune 
concerning this matter. And for the benefit of my colleagues, I have 
had placed on every Senator's desk a copy of this news article. I urge 
Senators to read the article and they will understand the importance of 
my amendment.
  Mr. President, the Minneapolis Star Tribune article was written by 
Sharon Schmickle and Tom Hamburger.
  The headline is: ``West and the Supreme Court; Members accepted gifts 
and perks while acting on appeals worth millions to Minnesota firm.''
  And it reads as follows:
       ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' These words, chiseled above 
     the huge bronze doors of the Supreme Court, promise that its 
     justices will be impartial.
       Yet some parties who asked the court to review their claims 
     against West Publishing Co. now wonder if they received equal 
     treatment. The reason: Since 1983, West has treated seven 
     Supreme Court justices to luxurious trips at posh resorts or 
     hotels.
       None of them saw the trips as reason to disqualify 
     themselves from considering whether to hear five cases 
     involving their host. In each of the five instances, the 
     justices declined to review a lower court's decision, leaving 
     intact a decision in favor of West.
       The odds already were against West's opponents, because the 
     high court each year agrees to hear fewer than 200 of the 
     5,000 or so requests for review.
       Two of the West cases involved key copyright issues. And 
     two cases were placed on lists indicating they were actively 
     discussed at the justices' weekly conference.
       All justices refused interviews, but two--Antonin Scalia 
     and Lewis Powell, who's now retired--said in written 
     responses that they saw nothing wrong with accepting expense-
     paid trips to attend meetings for what they regard as a 
     worthy purpose. ``That company [West] has been of great 
     importance to the legal profession and to legal scholars,'' 
     Powell wrote in response to the Star Tribune's inquiry.
       Here's a review of the justices' trips and the West-related 
     cases the Supreme Court considered:


                                  1983

       Byron White set the pattern for other justices. He accepted 
     an invitation to serve on a committee to select the winner of 
     the Edward J. Devitt Distinguished
      Service to Justice Award, a prize sponsored by West 
     Publishing Co. The other committee members were Devitt and 
     Judge Gerald Tjoflat of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. 
     Each committee member was to serve for two years.
       The committee could have reviewed candidates in St. Paul, 
     where Devitt lived, or on the East Coast, where White and 
     Tjoflat worked. Instead, they conducted their February 
     meeting at Marriott's Rancho Las Palmas in Palm Springs, 
     Calif. It's an appealing place--a four-star resort with 
     tennis courts and 27 holes of golf--and West picked up the 
     tab. The trip gave White, a former All-America halfback, a 
     chance to have a reunion with his old football coach, Johnny 
     (Blood) McNally, who lived nearby. Spouses were invited.
       West's CEO--

  Chief executive officer--

     Dwight Opperman, also attended the retreat, although he did 
     not sit in on selection-committee meetings.


                                  1984

       The group considered going to Florida for its second 
     meeting. But after consulting White, Devitt wrote to 
     Opperman--

  The CEO for West Publishing Co.--

     ``He said his wife was not too enthused about Florida. We 
     discussed San Diego, but I pointed out to him that that place 
     is not a warm spot in January or February.''
       California was selected. ``Dwight Opperman--

  West's CEO--

     has made a reservation for the 1984 meeting at Marriott's Las 
     Palmas Hotel in Palm Springs (same as last year),'' Devitt 
     wrote to White. In the same letter, he said, ``Dwight wants 
     to have Johnny Blood McNally and his wife join us for 
     recreation as before.''
       McNally, a graduate of St. John's in Collegeville, Minn., 
     coached White when he played for the Pittsburgh Steelers. 
     Devitt wrote McNally, inviting him and his wife to join the 
     group for ``social affairs.''
       A couple of weeks after the trip, paid for by West, White 
     wrote to Devitt: ``As usual, it was a pleasure to be with you 
     even if your golf was intolerably good.''
       Another Supreme Court justice also benefited that year. 
     Chief Justice Warren Burger was chosen to receive a special 
     award from the Devitt committee. He donated his $10,000 prize 
     to an organization that promotes interest in the law.
       Lewis Powell succeeded White on the Devitt panel. ``Caneel 
     Bay is a place my wife Jo and I always have hoped to visit,'' 
     Powell wrote in a 1984 letter to Devitt.
       Opperman--

  West Publishing Co.'s CEO--

     began scheduling a fall meeting at the exclusive resort on 
     St. John in the Virgin Islands.
       Within weeks of the suggestion, Opperman wrote to the 
     justice, saying the meeting would take place at Caneel Bay. 
     He promised to send resort brochures and invited the Powells 
     to stay overnight in Miami the day before the committee was 
     to meet. The letter reminded Powell: ``The Devitt Committee 
     travels first class, of course.'' And it said, ``I will send 
     you a check for the air fares right away and will reimburse 
     you for incidental expenses as you advise me.''
       After the trip, Powell wrote to Devitt, sending a copy to 
     Opperman, suggesting the next meeting be held at the Breakers 
     Hotel in Palm Beach, Fla. He
      said it is ``on the water, superior facilities, and 
     affording many interesting things to do and places to 
     see--particularly for our ladies.''


                                  1985

       Back in Washington, Powell and White received a list of 
     cases that included the name ``West Publishing Co.'' during 
     their closed-door conference meetings at the Supreme Court.
       Patrick Beary, who ran a one-man law office in Queens, 
     N.Y., had decided to press a libel complaint against West to 
     the nation's highest court. Beary wrote his own briefs for 
     the case that had been thrown out by judges in lower courts. 
     A federal appeals panel ruled that West had accurately 
     published a court decision involving Beary and that such 
     activity was protected by law. Beary claimed his libel case 
     raised constitutional questions requiring the high court's 
     review.
       Beary's petition was placed on the list of requests the 
     justices decided to discuss, suggesting that at least one 
     justice wanted to consider it. However, it was rejected for 
     reasons that aren't known because the court's conferences are 
     secret.
       At the time, Beary understood the rejection. Now that he 
     knows about the trips, he's not so sure. ``The justices who 
     went on these trips may have swayed their fellows on the 
     court not to hear the case, you know. I am entitled to my day 
     in court and I didn't get it,'' he said.


                                  1986

       Three months after the court rejected Beary's petition, it 
     was time for Powell and his wife to head to the next Devitt 
     committee meeting, at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, a 
     hotel where double-occupancy rooms currently go for $290 to 
     $455. They joined the Devitts, Ninth Circuit Judge James 
     Browning and two West executives and their wives.
       After the January meeting, Powell wrote Opperman [West's 
     CEO]: ``It was obvious that Jo and I enjoyed the gathering 
     last week of the Devitt Award Committee group.'' He went on 
     to praise the work of the committee, then added, ``I was most 
     favorably impressed by [West vice president] Gerry 
     Cafesjian.'' In June, Powell wrote Devitt telling how much he 
     enjoyed photos taken by Cafesjian and mailed to him after the 
     trip. ``We had several chuckles and the pictures brought back 
     the warmest memories,'' the justice wrote.
       Less than three weeks later, West's name again surfaced 
     before the court.
       West had resisted paying more than $160,000 in back taxes, 
     interest and penalties that the city of Phoenix was trying to 
     collect. It was a ``business-privilege'' tax that the city 
     routinely imposed on business activity conducted within its 
     limits. A West employee assigned to represent the company in 
     Arizona worked out of his Phoenix home, seeking orders and 
     answering questions about West's products. West argued that 
     most of its business in Arizona was conducted by direct mail 
     and that it did not actually operate an office in the city.
       An Arizona appeals court agreed with West and the Supreme 
     Court declined to
      hear the case. Only Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, an Arizona 
     native, removed herself from the vote on the city's 
     petition.
       A few weeks later, Powell and White received an unexpected 
     invitation from West. Although their two-year terms on the 
     Devitt committee had expired, Opperman invited the justices 
     to attend a special ``advisory committee meeting.''
       Through an exchange of letters, they decided to meet in 
     January at the Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Niguel, Calif. The 
     resort, which sites on a 200-foot bluff overlooking the 
     Pacific Ocean, has an 18-hole golf course.
       A handwritten note by Devitt indicates that during the 
     Saturday-through-Tuesday gathering, only Monday morning was 
     devoted to committee meetings. The rest of the schedule 
     listed ``free'' time, golf and dining.


                                  1987

       On Jan. 23, only days before Powell and White departed for 
     the California resort, the court met to consider another 
     request that it hear a case against West. It is a case that 
     has meant more to West than any other in recent history.
       The dispute involved Mead Data Central Inc., an Ohio 
     company that had jumped into electronic publishing and 
     threatened West's standing as a leading legal publisher. The 
     court opinions in Mead's computerized databases referred to 
     page numbers in West's law books. West had gone to court 
     claiming copyright infringement and a federal judge in 
     Minnesota had ordered Mead to stop using the numbers until 
     the lawsuit was settled. Though preliminary, the order 
     signaled that West's chances of winning the dispute were 
     good.
       After losing an appeal in the Eighth Circuit, Mead turned 
     to the high court. For West and Mead, millions of dollars 
     were riding on the decision. But the potential impact reached 
     further. If the court decided to 

[[Page S 10850]]
     hear the case, it also could lay the groundwork for other publishers 
     who were rushing into electronics.
       Neither White nor Powell disqualified himself from 
     participating in the decision, through Powell apparently 
     thought about it. The papers of the late Justice Thurgood 
     Marshall, on file at the Library of Congress, show that 
     Powell apparently considered disqualifying himself, telling 
     the clerk of the court in a letter: ``Following discussion of 
     this case at Conference today, I concluded it was unnecessary 
     for me to remain `out'. Therefore please disregard my letter 
     to you of January 22.''
       On Jan. 27, the court refused to hear Mead's appeal and 
     ultimately the companies negotiated a secret settlement, 
     reportedly requiring Mead to pay fees to West.
       On week after that decision, Powell and White joined 
     Oppeman, another West executive and former committee members 
     for the ``advisory'' session at the California resort. And as 
     they departed, Justice William Brennan, who had also 
     participated in discussions of Mead vs. West, prepared for 
     his own trip at West expense.
       William Brennan and his wife, Mary, flew to Hawaii for the 
     next Devitt committee gathering. They were greeted on 
     February 7, 1987, by the Oppermans, Devitt and Fifth Circuit 
     Judge Charles Clark at the Kahala Hilton in Honolulu.
       Brennan's first encounter with the Devitt panel had come in 
     early 1986, in the form of a letter of invitation from 
     Devitt.
       ``We would very much like to have you serve on the 
     committee,'' Devitt had written. ``I feel sure you will enjoy 
     it. In the past we have met for several days at the time of 
     the Supreme Court mid-winter break in late January or early 
     February. We have met in Palm Springs on two occasions [and] 
     in the Virgin Islands . . . It makes for a nice break from 
     the routine, and the responsibilities are not too burdensome 
     . . . The ten of us make for a small congenial group. The 
     arrangements are made and cared for by Mr. Opperman.''
       After Brennan's trip to the Kahala Hilton, Powell wrote to 
     Devitt: ``Bill Brennan returned from your recent meeting with 
     great enthusiasm and approval of the work of the committee. 
     His delightful wife Mary was equally enthusiastic.'' And Mary 
     Brennan wrote Devitt on Supreme Court notepaper saying: 
     ``Bill and I wanted you to know how very much we enjoyed 
     being with you in Hawaii. We had a great time, didn't we.''
       That summer, the Brennans and Oppermans had dinner together 
     in Rochester, Minn., while the justice was getting a checkup 
     at the Mayo Clinic. While in Rochester, they discussed plans 
     for the next Devitt panel meeting. Brennan wrote Devitt 
     shortly afterward: ``February 6-9 is open for Mary and me and 
     we can't wait.''


                                  1988

       The Brennans traveled to Naples, Fla., in February for the 
     next Devitt committee meeting, staying at the Ritz-Carlton.
       Brennan apparently was asked to recruit Chief Justice 
     William Rehnquist to serve on the panel the following year. 
     But Rehnquist declined, Brennan reported, calling it 
     ``wonderful duty but in his special relationship with the 
     judges of the district courts and the court of appeals he 
     thinks his service might be regarded as inappropriate.'' 
     Brennan concluded his letter to Opperman saying: ``Have you 
     anyone else in mind?''
       Sandra Day O'Connor was invited to join the Devitt 
     committee after three of the five recent West-related 
     petitions came before the court.
       She accepted the invitation in a letter to Devitt saying: 
     ``My colleagues have reported that it is a most pleasant task 
     carried out in a delightful setting.'' She declined Devitt's 
     invitation to suggest a meeting place.
       California was chosen and Opperman wrote to O'Connor saying 
     he would enclose ``a brochure about the hotel which is one of 
     the nation's finest.'' He reminded her that ``the Devitt 
     Committee travels first class'' and that he would meet the 
     justice and her husband, John, when they disembarked from 
     their flight to the West Coast.


                                  1989

       The Ritz-Carlton hotel in Rancho Mirage offers luxurious 
     accommodations near some of the country's finest golf courses 
     and the Devitt committee met there from Jan. 28-31. Devitt 
     had set up advance golf reservations--with 10 a.m. tee
      times--for himself and the O'Connors, Sunday at the Mission 
     Hills Resort and Monday at the Desert Island Country Club.
       At the Ritz-Carlton, Devitt received a handwritten note 
     from a member of West's team outlining the plans: The group 
     would meet at the Club Lounge each evening at 5:30. At about 
     6, a limo would take them to dinner. The business meetings 
     were listed as ``Time to be determined.'' On Sunday and 
     Monday mornings, O'Connor and Devitt were scheduled to depart 
     for the golf course at 9:30.
       After the California meeting, O'Connor wrote to Devitt on 
     Feb. 14: ``The Devitt Awards Committee meeting was such a 
     pleasant experience. I truly enjoyed the break from my 
     routine and the chance to join you on the links.''
       Before long, it was time to start planning the next 
     meeting, to be held at the Bel Air Hotel in Los Angeles, 
     described in a promotional brochure as ``DISCREET. UNHURRIED. 
     PRICELESS.''
       ``I re-read the brochure about the fancy hotel,'' Devitt 
     wrote to O'Connor in December. ``I'm sure we will have a good 
     time there. Dwight Opperman and I talked about it at lunch 
     yesterday.''
       About the time he wrote the letter, Donna Nelson, an 
     assistant state attorney general in Austin, Texas, was 
     writing the next petition the high court would receive asking 
     it to hear a case against West.
       For decades, West had published the statutes of Texas and 
     some two dozen other states under an arrangement that was 
     welcomed by state officials. But the harmonious relationship 
     ended in 1985, when West tried to use copyright claims to 
     block a competitor. Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox set out 
     to challenge West's copyright claims in court. Nelson was 
     assigned to write the briefs arguing that access to the law 
     belonged to the people of Texas, not to a private company.
       West didn't claim it owned the words in the law. But it 
     claimed rights to the arrangement, numbers and titles of the 
     various sections in the law. Without those elements, the law 
     would be inaccessible, Texas argued.
       Federal judges at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed 
     with a Texas judge who had granted West's request that the 
     case be dismissed. When Nelson argued the case, one of the 
     appeals court judges asked her, ``Did West do something to 
     make you mad?'' Texas wasn't planning to publish the laws 
     commercially and didn't have an ``actual controversy'' with 
     West, the appeals judges ruled.
       What was never disclosed to Nelson was that one of the 
     three appeals court judges, John Minor Wisdom, had been a co-
     winner of the Devitt award four months before the panel 
     issued its ruling against Texas. West had presented him with 
     $15,000 at a ceremony in New Orleans.
       Nelson wasn't surprised when the Supreme Court rejected her 
     petition for an appeal. But five years later--after learning 
     from the Star Tribune that a circuit judge had accepted the 
     cash award and justices had accepted expensive trips from the 
     state's opponent--Nelson said: ``That just breaks my heart. 
     That's awful.''
                                  1990

       Five days after the court rejected the Texas petition 
     (apparently without disqualification by any member), O'Connor 
     flew to Los Angeles to meet Opperman, Devitt and the others 
     at the Bel Air Hotel.
       After the trip, Devitt wrote to O'Connor: ``We were all 
     very happy to have John [her husband] with us at Bel-Air. He 
     is a wonderful Irishman.''
       Later, O'Connor wrote to Devitt telling him ``it was a 
     great treat'' to serve on the award committee and sent him 
     photographs of the visit to California.
       When she filed the financial disclosure forms judges are 
     required to complete each year, she didn't report the West-
     paid trip. When the Star Tribune inquired about the form, 
     she--

  Justice O'Connor--

     said through a court spokeswoman that it was an oversight and 
     that it will be corrected.
       John Paul Stevens got his invitation to serve on the Devitt 
     committee in February. ``I feel sure you will enjoy it,'' 
     Devitt wrote to Stevens. Stevens responded by telephone, 
     according to Devitt's handwritten notes, saying he wanted to 
     meet in Florida.
       That spring, Opperman wrote Stevens asking whether the 
     justice and his wife, Maryan, preferred golf or tennis. 
     Stevens wrote back: ``It was most thoughtful of you to 
     accommodate us. In response to your inquiry, we are both 
     interested in tennis and golf.''


                                  1991

       Stevens, his wife and other committee members met with the 
     West executives in January at the Ritz-Carlton in Naples. 
     Judge William J. Holloway Jr., who also attended, said judges 
     were provided with suite accommodations courtesy of West. A 
     receipt shows that Devitts' room charge was $700 a night.
       Meanwhile, in Washington, the court had received a fifth 
     request to hear a case against West. Arthur D'Amario, a 
     photographer from Rhode Island, had an altercation with 
     security guards outside a rock concert at the Providence 
     Civic Center and was convicted of simple assault. When his 
     appeal was denied by the Rhode Island Supreme Court, West 
     received a copy of the opinion as part of the material it 
     routinely gathers for its books.
       D'Amario tried to stop West from publishing the opinion, 
     alleging it was libelous and would infringe on his privacy 
     rights. Lower courts had ruled that they could not enjoin 
     West from publishing an official court decision. D'Amario 
     petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.
       D'Amario did not know until last month that justices 
     considering his case had been entertained by West. ``I think 
     they have a duty to notify the petitioner of a conflict of 
     interest like this whether or not they think that the 
     potential conflict affects their judgment,'' he said. ``If I 
     had known this, I might have raised an ethics complaint at 
     the time.''
       D'Amario's petition came before the court's conference two 
     months after Stevens returned from the Florida trip. The 
     justices denied the petition on
      March 18.
       D'Amario's petition marks the end of the requests the court 
     has received since 1982 to hear cases against West. But the 
     trips continued.
       In May, Devitt wrote Stevens about plans for the January 
     1992 meeting of the committee. ``We will probably meet either 
     in some 

[[Page S 10851]]
     Caribbean spot or on a boat trip out of some Florida port.''


                                  1992

       Indeed, they did find a warm port. Stevens and his wife 
     joined the committee for a January meeting in Nassau, the 
     Bahamas, at Paradise Island Resort & Casino.
       Another judge on the committee, Holloway of the 10th 
     Circuit Court of Appeals in Oklahoma City, reported on his 
     disclosure form that West provided ``lodging, food, 
     entertainment and miscellaneous courtesies.''
       Devitt died March 2. Few records about the committee 
     meetings after his death are available.


                                  1993

       Antonin Scalia was the next justice to make a West-paid 
     trip.
       In January 1993, Scalia and his wife attended a Devitt 
     committee meeting in Los Angeles, according to his financial 
     disclosure form. Scalia had written to Devitt in August 1991 
     that he and his wife, Maureen, ``look forward to a warm 
     meeting place--though we will leave the selection to you.''
       Scalia did not list a value for the trip. However, another 
     judge attending that session, Seventh Circuit Court Judge 
     William Bauer, listed the value of the three days of West-
     sponsored lodging and travel at $7,700.


                                  1994

       The Star Tribune was unable to determine where the Devitt 
     committee met to make its decisions in 1994.


                                  1995

       Anthony Kennedy is the newest justice to join the Devitt 
     committee. He attended his first meeting as a panelist in 
     January at the posh Four Seasons hotel in New York City.
       Kennedy joined the group after the court decided against 
     hearing appeals in the Texas and D'Amario cases, and no West 
     cases have come before the court since then.
       Kennedy declined to release his correspondence concerning 
     the Devitt committee. But Richard Arnold, chief judge of the 
     Eighth Circuit, released letters he received from Opperman 
     describing arrangements for the meeting:
       ``The committee and spouses usually eat dinner as a group. 
     If there is some restaurant you especially want to try let me 
     know,'' Opperman wrote to Arnold in October.
       ``There will be time for the theater and museums. I would 
     like to know your interests so we can accommodate them.''
       The official business of the committee was taken care of in 
     two three-hour meetings during the trip that lasted Jan. 22-
     25, Arnold said.

  Mr. President, what we have here appears to be convincing evidence 
that West Publishing, through its chief executive officer, was 
providing free trips to members of the Federal judiciary, many times to 
the poshest of resorts, at the same time that West was involved in 
litigation before those courts. In instance after instance, as this 
story has documented, it appears that the impartiality of the judiciary 
could have been called into question, thus undermining the confidence 
which the American people place in that branch of government.
  Let me stress here that I do not believe any Federal judge, any more 
than any Member of Congress, is easily susceptible to influence as a 
result of travel taken in connection with an awards-selection 
committee. But just as the bill now before the Senate is meant to 
address very real concerns with regard to the public's perception of 
the legislative branch, so, too, my amendment is meant to encourage the 
Judicial Conference to address such concerns within the judicial 
branch.
  For those Senators who may not be familiar with the rules and 
regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference, let me quote 
briefly from section 5 of those regulations. That section, dealing with 
the acceptance of gifts, states, in part:

       A judicial officer or employee shall not accept a gift from 
     anyone except for a gift incident to a public testimonial, 
     notes, tapes, and other source materials supplied by 
     publishers on a complimentary basis for official use or an 
     invitation to the officer or employee and a family member to 
     attend a bar-related function or an activity devoted to the 
     improvement of the law, the legal system, or the 
     administration of justice.

  My concern, Mr. President--especially in light of the newspaper 
article I have just read--and thus the basis for my amendment, is that 
the language in section 5 of the regulations of the Judicial Conference 
may allow too much latitude and thus jeopardize the appearance of 
impartiality of the judiciary.
  If we agree that there is a crisis of confidence in this country 
regarding the most sacred institutions of our Government, and that that 
crisis must be addressed, then I think we must agree that no branch of 
Government can ignore the challenge to look inward and reevaluate its 
rules of conduct--not the legislative branch, not the executive branch, 
and certainly not the judicial branch. We must all accept the 
responsibility for addressing public perception by strengthening our 
internal rules in an effort to put very valid concerns about improper 
conduct to rest, however unfounded those concerns may be. Mr. 
President, my amendment will say to the Federal judiciary that it, too, 
should join the legislative and executive branches in undertaking that 
task.


                Amendment No. 1878 to Amendment No. 1872

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to the 
     regulation of the acceptance of gifts by the judicial branch)

  Mr. BYRD. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which I now 
send to the desk. I ask that such time as I have already used be 
charged against the time under my control on the amendment, reserving 
only 5 minutes for my further control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1878 to amendment No. 1872.
       At the appropriate place in the amendment, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . GIFTS IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Judicial Conference 
     of the United States should review and reevaluate its 
     regulations pertaining to the acceptance of gifts and the 
     acceptance of travel and travel-related expenses and that 
     such regulations should cover all judicial branch employees, 
     including members and employees of the Supreme Court of the 
     United States.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record the news article to which I have referred, March 5, 1995, 
Metro Edition, Minneapolis Star Tribune, so that the Record will show 
that I have read the article word for word, offering no interpretations 
of it on my part, with the exception of, from time to time, 
reidentifying a name for clarification for the reader or listener.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Mar. 5, 1995]

  West and the Supreme Court; Members Accepted Gifts and Perks While 
           Acting on Appeals Worth Millions to Minnesota Firm

                (By Sharon Schmickle and Tom Hamburger)

       ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' These words, chiseled above 
     the huge bronze doors of the Supreme Court, promise that its 
     justices will be impartial.
       Yet some parties who asked the court to review their claims 
     against West Publishing Co. now wonder if they received equal 
     treatment. The reason: Since 1983, West has treated seven 
     Supreme Court justices to luxurious trips at posh resorts or 
     hotels.
       None of them saw the trips as reason to disqualify 
     themselves from considering whether to hear five cases 
     involving their host. In each of the five instances, the 
     justices declined to review a lower court's decision, leaving 
     intact a decision in favor of West.
       The odds already were against West's opponents, because the 
     high court each year agrees to hear fewer than 200 of the 
     5,000 or so requests for review.
       Two of the West cases involved key copyright issues. And 
     two cases were placed on lists indicating they were actively 
     discussed at the justices' weekly conference.
       All justices refused interviews, but two--Antonin Scalia 
     and Lewis Powell, who's now retired--said in written 
     responses that they saw nothing wrong with accepting expense-
     paid trips to attend meetings for what they regard as a 
     worthy purpose. ``That company [West] has been of great 
     importance to the legal profession and to legal scholars,'' 
     Powell wrote in response to the Star Tribune's inquiry.
       Here's a review of the justices' trips and the West-related 
     cases the Supreme Court considered:


                                  1983

       Byron White set the pattern for other justices. He accepted 
     an invitation to serve on a committee to select the winner of 
     the Edward J. Devitt Distinguished
      Service to Justice Award, a prize sponsored by West 
     Publishing Co. The other committee members were Devitt and 
     Judge Gerald Tjoflat of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. 
     Each committee member was to serve for two years.
       The committee could have reviewed candidates in St. Paul, 
     where Devitt lived, or on the East Coast, where White and 
     Tjoflat worked. Instead, they conducted their February 
     meeting at Marriott's Rancho Las Palmas in Palm Springs, 
     Calif. It's an appealing place--a four-star resort with 
     tennis courts and 27 holes of golf--and West picked 

[[Page S 10852]]
     up the tab. The trip gave White, a former All-American halfback, a 
     chance to have a reunion with his old football coach, Johnny 
     (Blood) McNally, who lived nearby. Spouses were invited.
       West's CEO, Dwight Opperman, also attended the retreat, 
     although he did not sit in on selection-committee meetings.


                                  1984

       The group considered going to Florida for its second 
     meeting. But after consulting White, Devitt wrote to 
     Opperman: ``He said his wife was not too enthused about 
     Florida. We discussed San Diego, but I pointed out to him 
     that that place is not a warm spot in January or February.''
       California was selected. ``Dwight Opperman has made a 
     reservation for the 1984 meeting at Marriott's Las Palmas 
     Hotel in Palm Springs (same as last year),'' Devitt wrote to 
     White. In the same letter, he said, ``Dwight wants to have 
     Johnny Blood McNally and his wife join us for recreation as 
     before.''
       McNally, a graduate of St. John's in Collegeville, Minn., 
     coached White when he played for the Pittsburgh Steelers. 
     Devitt wrote McNally, inviting him and his wife to join the 
     group for ``social affairs.''
       A couple of weeks after the trip, paid for by West, White 
     wrote to Devitt: ``As usual, it was a pleasure to be with you 
     even if your golf was intolerably good.''
       Another Supreme Court justice also benefited that year. 
     Chief Justice Warren Burger was chosen to receive a special 
     award from the Devitt committee. He donated his $10,000 prize 
     to an organization that promotes interest in the law.
       Lewis Powell succeeded White on the Devitt panel. ``Caneel 
     Bay is a place my wife Jo and I always have hoped to visit,'' 
     Powell wrote in a 1984 letter to Devitt.
       Opperman begun scheduling a fall meeting at the exclusive 
     resort on St. John in the Virgin Islands.
       Within weeks of the suggestion, Opperman wrote to the 
     justice, saying the meeting would take place at Caneel Bay. 
     He promised to send resort brochures and invited the Powells 
     to stay overnight in Miami the day before the committee was 
     to meet. The letter reminded Powell: ``The Devitt Committee 
     travels first class, of course.'' And it said, ``I will send 
     you a check for the air fares right away and will reimburse 
     you for incidental expenses as you advise me.''
       After the trip, Powell wrote to Devitt, sending a copy to 
     Opperman, suggesting the next meeting be held at the Breakers 
     Hotel in Palm Beach, Fla. He
      said it is ``on the water, superior facilities, and 
     affording many interesting things to do and places to 
     see--particularly for our ladies.''


                                  1985

       Back in Washington, Powell and White received a list of 
     cases that included the name ``West Publishing Co.'' during 
     their closed-door conference meetings at the Supreme Court.
       Patrick Beary, who ran a one-man law office in Queens, 
     N.Y., had decided to press a libel complaint against West to 
     the nation's highest court. Beary wrote his own briefs for 
     the case that had been thrown out by judges in lower courts. 
     A federal appeals panel ruled that West had accurately 
     published a court decision involving Beary and that such 
     activity was protected by law. Beary claimed his libel case 
     raised constitutional questions requiring the high court's 
     review.
       Beary's petition was placed on the list of requests the 
     justices decided to discuss, suggesting that at least one 
     justice wanted to consider it. However, it was rejected for 
     reasons that aren't known because the court's conferences are 
     secret.
       At the time, Beary understood the rejection. Now that he 
     knows about the trips, he's not so sure. ``The justices who 
     went on these trips may have swayed their fellows on the 
     court not to hear the case, you know. I am entitled to my day 
     in court and I didn't get it,'' he said.


                                  1986

       Three months after the court rejected Beary's petition, it 
     was time for Powell and his wife to head to the next Devitt 
     committee meeting, at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, a 
     hotel where double-occupancy rooms currently go for $290 to 
     $455. They joined the Devitts, Ninth Circuit Judge James 
     Browning and two West executives and their wives.
       After the January meeting, Powell wrote Opperman: ``It was 
     obvious that Jo and I enjoyed the gathering last week of the 
     Devitt Award Committee group.'' He went on to praise the work 
     of the committee, then added, ``I was most favorably 
     impressed by [West vice president] Gerry Cafesjian.'' In 
     June, Powell wrote Devitt telling how much he enjoyed photos 
     taken by Cafesjian and mailed to him after the trip. ``We had 
     several chuckles and the pictures brought back the warmest 
     memories,'' the justice wrote.
       Less than three weeks later, West's name again surfaced 
     before the court.
       West had resisted paying more than $160,000 in back taxes, 
     interest and penalties that the city of Phoenix was trying to 
     collect. It was a ``business-privilege'' tax that the city 
     routinely imposed on business activity conducted within its 
     limits. A West employee assigned to represent the company in 
     Arizona worked out of his Phoenix home, seeking orders and 
     answering questions about West's products. West argued that 
     most of its business in Arizona was conducted by direct mail 
     and that it did not actually operate an office in the city.
       An Arizona appeals court agreed with West and the Supreme 
     Court declined to
      hear the case. Only Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, an Arizona 
     native, removed herself from the vote on the city's 
     petition.
       A few weeks later, Powell and White received an unexpected 
     invitation from West. Although their two-year terms on the 
     Devitt committee had expired, Opperman invited the justices 
     to attend a special ``advisory committee meeting.''
       Through an exchange of letters, they decided to meet in 
     January at the Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Niguel, Calif. The 
     resort, which sits on a 200-foot bluff overlooking the 
     Pacific Ocean, has an 18-hole golf course.
       A handwritten note by Devitt indicates that during the 
     Saturday-through-Tuesday gathering, only Monday morning was 
     devoted to committee meetings. The rest of the schedule 
     listed ``free'' time, golf and dining.


                                  1987

       On Jan. 23, only days before Powell and White departed for 
     the California resort, the court met to consider another 
     request that it hear a case against West. It is a case that 
     has meant more to West than any other in recent history.
       The dispute involved Mead Data Central Inc., an Ohio 
     company that had jumped into electronic publishing and 
     threatened West's standing as a leading legal publisher. The 
     court opinions in Mead's computerized databases referred to 
     page numbers in West's law books. West had gone to court 
     claiming copyright infringement and a federal judge in 
     Minnesota had ordered Mead to stop using the numbers until 
     the lawsuit was settled. Though preliminary, the order 
     signaled that West's chances of winning the dispute were 
     good.
       After losing an appeal in the Eighth Circuit, Mead turned 
     to the high court. For West and Mead, millions of dollars 
     were riding on the decision. But the potential impact reached 
     further. If the court decided to hear the case, it also could 
     lay the groundwork for other publishers who were rushing into 
     electronics.
       Neither White nor Powell disqualified himself from 
     participating in the decision, though Powell apparently 
     thought about it. The papers of the late Justice Thurgood 
     Marshall, on file at the Library of Congress, show that 
     Powell apparently considered disqualifying himself, telling 
     the clerk of the court in a letter: ``Following discussion of 
     this case at Conference today, I concluded it was unnecessary 
     for me to remain `out'. Therefore please disregard my letter 
     to you of January 22.''
       On Jan. 27, the court refused to hear Mead's appeal and 
     ultimately the companies negotiated a secret settlement, 
     reportedly requiring Mead to pay fees to West.
       One week after that decision, Powell and White joined 
     Opperman, another West executive and former committee members 
     for the ``advisory'' session at the California resort. And as 
     they departed, Justice William Brennan, who had also 
     participated in discussions of Mead vs. West, prepared for 
     his own trip at West expense.
       William Brennan and his wife, Mary, flew to Hawaii for the 
     next Devitt committee gathering. They were greeted on Feb. 7, 
     1987, by the Oppermans, Devitt and Fifth Circuit Judge 
     Charles Clark at the Kahala Hilton in Honolulu.
       Brennan's first encounter with the Devitt panel had come in 
     early 1986, in the form of a letter of invitation from 
     Devitt.
       ``We would very much like to have you serve on the 
     committee,'' Devitt had written. ``I feel sure you will enjoy 
     it. In the past we have met for several days at the time of 
     the Supreme Court mid-winter break in late January or early 
     February. We have met in Palm Springs on two occasions [and] 
     in the Virgin Islands . . . It makes for a nice break from 
     the routine, and the responsibilities are not too burdensome 
     . . . The ten of us make for a small congenial group. The 
     arrangements are made and cared for by Mr. Opperman.''
       After Brennan's trip to the Kahala Hilton, Powell wrote to 
     Devitt: ``Bill Brennan returned from your recent meeting with 
     great enthusiasm and approval of the work of the committee. 
     His delightful wife Mary was equally enthusiastic.'' And Mary 
     Brennan wrote Devitt on Supreme Court notepaper saying: 
     ``Bill and I wanted you to know how very much we enjoyed 
     being with you in Hawaii. We had a great time, didn't we.''
       That summer, the Brennans and Opper- mans had 
     dinner together in Rochester, Minn., while the justice was 
     getting a checkup at the Mayo Clinic. While in Rochester, 
     they discussed plans for the next Devitt panel meeting. 
     Brennan wrote Devitt shortly afterward: ``February 6-9 is 
     open for Mary and me and we can't wait.''


                                  1988

       The Brennans traveled to Naples, Fla., in February for the 
     next Devitt committee meeting, staying at the Ritz-Carlton.
       Brennan apparently was asked to recruit Chief Justice 
     William Rehnquist to serve on the panel the following year. 
     But Rehnquist declined, Brennan reported, calling it 
     ``wonderful duty but in his special relationship with the 
     judges of the district courts and the court of appeals he 
     thinks his service might be regarded as inappropriate.'' 
     Brennan concluded his letter to Opperman saying: ``Have you 
     anyone else in mind?''
       Sandra Day O'Connor was invited to join the Devitt 
     committee after three of the five recent West-related 
     petitions came before the court.

[[Page S 10853]]

       She accepted the invitation in a letter to Devitt saying: 
     ``My colleagues have reported that it is a most pleasant task 
     carried out in a delightful setting.'' She declined Devitt's 
     invitation to suggest a meeting place.
       California was chosen and Opperman wrote to O'Connor saying 
     he would enclose ``a brochure about the hotel which is one of 
     the nation's finest.'' He reminded her that ``the Devitt 
     Committee travels first class'' and that he would meet the 
     justice and her husband, John, when they disembarked from 
     their flight to the West Coast.


                                  1989

       The Ritz-Carlton hotel in Rancho Mirage offers luxurious 
     accommodations near some of the country's finest golf courses 
     and the Devitt committee met there from Jan. 28-31. Devitt 
     had set up advance golf reservations--with 10 a.m. tee
      times--for himself and the O'Connors, Sunday at the Mission 
     Hills Resort and Monday at the Desert Island Country Club.
       At the Ritz-Carlton, Devitt received a handwritten note 
     from a member of West's team outlining the plans: The group 
     would meet at the Club Lounge each evening at 5:30. At about 
     6, a limo would take them to dinner. The business meetings 
     were listed as ``Time to be determined.'' On Sunday and 
     Monday mornings, O'Connor and Devitt were scheduled to depart 
     for the golf course at 9:30.
       After the California meeting, O'Connor wrote to Devitt on 
     Feb. 14: ``The Devitt Awards Committee meeting was such a 
     pleasant experience. I truly enjoyed the break from my 
     routine and the chance to join you on the links.''
       Before long, it was time to start planning the next 
     meeting, to be held at the Bel Air Hotel in Los Angeles, 
     described in a promotional brochure as ``DISCREET. UNHURRIED. 
     PRICELESS.''
       ``I re-read the brochure about the fancy hotel,'' Devitt 
     wrote to O'Connor in December. ``I'm sure we will have a good 
     time there. Dwight Opperman and I talked about it at lunch 
     yesterday.''
       About the time he wrote the letter, Donna Nelson, an 
     assistant state attorney general in Austin, Texas, was 
     writing the next petition the high court would receive asking 
     it to hear a case against West.
       For decades, West had published the statutes of Texas and 
     some two dozen other states under an arrangement that was 
     welcomed by state officials. But the harmonious relationship 
     ended in 1985, when West tried to use copyright claims to 
     block a competitor. Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox set out 
     to challenge West's copyright claims in court. Nelson was 
     assigned to write the briefs arguing that access to the law 
     belonged to the people of Texas, not to a private company.
       West didn't claim it owned the words in the law. But it 
     claimed rights to the arrangement, numbers and titles of the 
     various sections in the law. Without those elements, the law 
     would be inaccessible, Texas argued.
        Federal judges at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
     agreed with a Texas judge who had granted West's request that 
     the case be dismissed. When Nelson argued the case, one of 
     the appeals court judges asked her, ``Did West do something 
     to make you mad?'' Texas wasn't planning to publish the laws 
     commercially and didn't have an ``actual controversy'' with 
     West, the appeals judges ruled.
       What was never disclosed to Nelson was that one of the 
     three appeals court judges, John Minor Wisdom, had been a co-
     winner of the Devitt award four months before the panel 
     issued its ruling against Texas. West had presented him with 
     $15,000 at a ceremony in New Orleans.
       Nelson wasn't surprised when the Supreme Court rejected her 
     petition for an appeal. But five years later--after learning 
     from the Star Tribune that a circuit judge had accepted the 
     cash award and justices had accepted expensive trips from the 
     state's opponent--Nelson said: ``That just breaks my heart. 
     That's awful.''
                                  1990

       Five days after the court rejected the Texas petition 
     (apparently without disqualification by any member), O'Connor 
     flew to Los Angeles to meet Opperman, Devitt and the others 
     at the Bel Air Hotel.
       After the trip, Devitt wrote to O'Connor: ``We were all 
     very happy to have John [her husband] with us at Bel-Air. He 
     is a wonderful Irishman.''
       Later, O'Connor wrote to Devitt telling him ``it was a 
     great treat'' to serve on the award committee and sent him 
     photographs of the visit to California.
       When she filed the financial disclosure forms judges are 
     required to complete each year, she didn't report the West-
     paid trip. When the Star Tribune inquired about the form, she 
     said through a court spokeswoman that it was an oversight and 
     that it will be corrected.
       John Paul Stevens got his invitation to serve on the Devitt 
     committee in February. ``I feel sure you will enjoy it,'' 
     Devitt wrote to Stevens. Stevens responded by telephone, 
     according to Devitt's handwritten notes, saying he wanted to 
     meet in Florida.
       That spring, Opperman wrote Stevens asking whether the 
     justice and his wife, Maryan, preferred golf or tennis. 
     Stevens wrote back: ``It was most thoughtful of you to 
     accommodate us. In response to your inquiry, we are both 
     interested in tennis and golf.''


                                  1991

       Stevens, his wife and other committee members met with the 
     West executives in January at the Ritz-Carlton in Naples. 
     Judge William J. Holloway Jr., who also attended, said judges 
     were provided with suite accommodations courtesy of West. A 
     receipt shows that Devitts' room charge was $700 a night.
       Meanwhile, in Washington, the court had received a fifth 
     request to hear a case against West. Arthur D'Amario, a 
     photographer from Rhode Island, had an altercation with 
     security guards outside a rock concert at the Providence 
     Civic Center and was convicted of simple assault. When his 
     appeal was denied by the Rhode Island Supreme Court, West 
     received a copy of the opinion as part of the material it 
     routinely gathers for its books.
       D'Amario tried to stop West from publishing the opinion, 
     alleging it was libelous and would infringe on his privacy 
     rights. Lower courts had ruled that they could not enjoin 
     West from publishing an official court decision. D'Amario 
     petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.
       D'Amario did not know until last month that justices 
     considering his case had been entertained by West. ``I think 
     they have a duty to notify the petitioner of a conflict of 
     interest like this whether or not they think that the 
     potential conflict affects their judgment,'' he said. ``If I 
     had known this, I might have raised an ethics complaint at 
     the time.''
       D'Amario's petition came before the court's conference two 
     months after Stevens returned from the Florida trip. The 
     justices denied the petition on
      March 18.
       D'Amario's petition marks the end of the requests the court 
     has received since 1982 to hear cases against West. But the 
     trips continued.
       In May, Devitt wrote Stevens about plans for the January 
     1992 meeting of the committee. ``We will probably meet either 
     in some Caribbean spot or on a boat trip out of some Florida 
     port.''


                                  1992

       Indeed, they did find a warm port. Stevens and his wife 
     joined the committee for a January meeting in Nassau, the 
     Bahamas, at Paradise Island Resort & Casino.
       Another judge on the committee, Holloway of the 10th 
     Circuit Court of Appeals in Oklahoma City, reported on his 
     disclosure form that West provided ``lodging, food, 
     entertainment and miscellaneous courtesies.''
       Devitt died March 2. Few records about the committee 
     meetings after his death are available.


                                  1993

       Antonin Scalia was the next justice to make a West-paid 
     trip.
       In January 1993, Scalia and his wife attended a Devitt 
     committee meeting in Los Angeles, according to his financial 
     disclosure form. Scalia had written to Devitt in August 1991 
     that he and his wife, Maureen, ``look forward to a warm 
     meeting place--though we will leave the selection to you.''
       Scalia did not list a value for the trip. However, another 
     judge attending that session, Seventh Circuit Court Judge 
     William Bauer, listed the value of the three days of West-
     sponsored lodging and travel at $7,700.


                                  1994

       The Star Tribune was unable to determine where the Devitt 
     committee met to make its decisions in 1994.


                                  1995

       Anthony Kennedy is the newest justice to join the Devitt 
     committee. He attended his first meeting as a panelist in 
     January at the posh Four Seasons hotel in New York City.
       Kennedy joined the group after the court decided against 
     hearing appeals in the Texas and D'Amario cases, and no West 
     cases have come before the court since then.
       Kennedy declined to release his correspondence concerning 
     the Devitt committee. But Richard Arnold, chief judge of the 
     Eighth Circuit, released letters he received from Opperman 
     describing arrangements for the meeting:
       ``The committee and spouses usually eat dinner as a group. 
     If there is some restaurant you especially want to try let me 
     know,'' Opperman wrote to Arnold in October.
       ``There will be time for the theater and museums. I would 
     like to know your interests so we can accommodate them.''
       The official business of the committee was taken care of in 
     two three-hour meetings during the trip that lasted Jan. 22-
     25, Arnold said.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record, ``Regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United 
States under title III of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 Concerning 
Gifts.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States Under Title 
         III of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 Concerning Gifts

       Authority: Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-194, 
     Sec. Sec. 301 and 303, 103 Stat. 1716, 1745-1747 (1989), as 
     amended by Pub. L. No. 101-280, amending 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7351 
     and adding new Sec. 7353 to 5 U.S.C. These regulations are 
     promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States 
     under the authorities of 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 7351(c), 
     7353(b)(1) and (d)(1)(C).
       Sec. 1.  Purpose and Scope.
       (a) These regulations implement 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 7351 and 
     7353, which prohibit the giving, solicitation, or acceptance 
     of certain gifts by 

[[Page S 10854]]
     officers and employees of the judicial branch and provide for the 
     establishment of such reasonable exceptions to those 
     prohibitions as the Judicial Conference of the United States 
     finds appropriate.
       (b) Nothing in these regulations alters any other standards 
     or Codes of Conduct adopted by the Judicial Conference of the 
     United States.
       (c) Any violation of any provision of these regulations 
     will make the officer or employee involved subject to 
     appropriate disciplinary action.
       Sec. 2.  Definition of ``Judicial Officer or Employee.''
       In these regulations, a ``judicial officer or employee'' 
     means a United States circuit judge, district judge, judge of 
     the Court of International Trade, judge of the Court of 
     Federal Claims, judge and special trial judge of the Tax 
     Court, judge of the Court of Veterans Appeals, bankruptcy 
     judge, magistrate judge, commissioner of the Sentencing 
     Commission, and any employee of the judicial branch other 
     than an employee of the Supreme Court of the United States or 
     the Federal Judicial Center.
       Sec. 3.  Definition of ``Gift.''
       ``Gift'' means any gratuity, entertainment, forbearance, 
     bequest, favor, the gratuitous element of a loan, or other 
     similar item having monetary value but does not include: (a) 
     modest items of food and refreshments, such as soft drinks, 
     coffee and donuts, offered for present consumption other than 
     as part of a meal; (b) greeting cards and items with little 
     intrinsic value, such as
      plaques, certificates, and trophies, which are intended 
     solely for presentation; (c) rewards and prizes given to 
     competitors in contents or events, including random 
     drawings, that are open to the public.
       Sec. 4. Solicitation of Gifts by a Judicial Officer or 
     Employee.
       (a) A judicial officer or employee shall not solicit a gift 
     from any person who is seeking official action from or doing 
     business with the courts (or other employing entity), or from 
     any other person whose interests may be substantially 
     affected by the performance or nonperformance of the judicial 
     officer or employee's official duties, including in the case 
     of a judge any person who has come or is likely to come 
     before the judge.
       (b) A judicial officer or employee shall not solicit a 
     contribution from another officer or employee for a gift to 
     an official superior, make a donation as a gift to an 
     official superior, or accept a gift from an officer or 
     employee receiving less pay than himself or herself. This 
     paragraph does not prohibit a judicial officer or employee 
     from collecting voluntary contributions for a gift, or making 
     a voluntary gift, to a official superior for a special 
     occasion such as marriage, anniversary, birthday, retirement, 
     illness, or under other circumstances or ordinary social 
     hospitality.
       Sec. 5. Acceptance of Gifts by a Judicial Officer or 
     Employee, Exceptions.
       A judicial officer or employee shall not accept a gift from 
     anyone except for--
       (a) a gift incident to a public testimonial, books, tapes, 
     and other resource materials supplied by publishers on a 
     complimentary basis for official use, or an invitation to the 
     officer or employee and a family member to attend a bar-
     related function or an activity devoted to the improvement of 
     the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice;
       (b) a gift incident to the business, profession or other 
     separate activity of a spouse or other family member of an 
     officer or employee residing in the officer's or employee's 
     household, including gifts for the use of both the spouse or 
     other family member and the officer or employee (as spouse or 
     family member), provided the gift could not reasonably be 
     perceived as intended to influence the officer or employee in 
     the performance of
      official duties or to have been offered or enhanced because 
     of the judicial employee's official position;
       (c) ordinary social hospitality;
       (d) a gift from a relative or friend, for a special 
     occasion, such as a wedding, anniversary or birthday, if the 
     gift is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the 
     relationship;
       (e) a gift from a relative or close personal friend whose 
     appearance or interest in a case would in any event require 
     that the officer or employee take no official action with 
     respect to the case;
       (f) a loan from a lending institution in the regular course 
     of business on the same terms generally available to persons 
     who are not officers or employees;
       (g) a scholarship or fellowship awarded on the same terms 
     and based on the same criteria applied to other applicants; 
     or
       (h) in the case of a judicial officer or employee other 
     than a judge or a member of a judge's personal staff, a gift 
     (other than cash or investment interests) having an aggregate 
     market value of $50 or less per occasion, provided that the 
     aggregate market value of individual gifts received from any 
     one person under the authority of this subsection shall not 
     exceed $100 in a calendar year;
       (i) any other gift only if:
       (1) the donor has not sought and is not seeking to do 
     business with the court or other entity served by the 
     judicial officer or employee; or
       (2) in the case of a judge, the donor is not a party or 
     other person who has come or is likely to come before the 
     judge or whose interests may be substantially affected by the 
     performance or nonperformance of his or her official duties; 
     or
       (3) in the case of any other judicial officer or employee, 
     the donor is not a party or other person who has had or is 
     likely to have any interest in the performance of the 
     officer's or employee's official duties.
       Sec. 6. Additional Limitations.
       Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5, no gift may be 
     received by a judicial officer or employee in return for 
     being influenced in the performance of an official act or in 
     violation of any statute or regulation, nor may a judicial 
     officer or employee accept gifts from the same or different 
     sources on a basis so frequent that a reasonable person would 
     be led to believe that the public office is being used for 
     private gain.
       Sec. 7. Disclosure Requirements.
       Judicial officers and employees subject to the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 and the instructions of the Financial 
     Disclosure Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United 
     States must comply with the Act and the instructions in 
     disclosing gifts.
       Sec. 8. Advisory Opinions.
       The Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial 
     Conference of the United States is authorized to render 
     advisory opinions interpreting Title III of the Ethics Reform 
     Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 7351 and 7353) and these regulations. 
     Any person covered by the Act and these regulations may 
     request an advisory opinion by writing to the Chairman of the 
     Committee on Codes of Conduct, in care of the Administrative 
     Office of the United States Courts, Washington, D.C. 20544.
       Sec. 9. Disposition of Prohibited Gifts.
       (a) A judicial officer or employee who has received a gift 
     that cannot be accepted under these regulations should return 
     any tangible item to the donor, except that a perishable item 
     may be given to an appropriate charity, shared within the 
     recipient's office, or destroyed.
       (b) A judicial agency may authorize disposition or return 
     of gifts at Government expense.


                               commentary

       All officers and employees of the judicial branch hold 
     appointive positions. Title III of the Act thus applies to 
     all officers and employees of the judicial branch. However, 
     the Judicial Conference has delegated its administrative and 
     enforcement authority under the Act for officers and 
     employees of the Supreme Court of the United States to the 
     Chief Justice of the United States and for employees of the 
     Federal Judicial Center to its Board. For this reason, the 
     definition of ``judicial officer or employee'' does not 
     include every judicial officer or employee whose conduct is 
     governed by Title III. For purposes of Title III and
      these regulations, employees of the Tax Court and the Court 
     of Veterans Appeals are employees of the judicial branch.
       These regulations do not repeal the gift provisions of the 
     Codes of Conduct heretoforce promulgated by the Judicial 
     Conference. The scope of the gift provisions of the Codes 
     exceeds that of these regulations and the statute, however, 
     in that they impose certain responsibilities on an officer or 
     employee with respect to the receipt of gifts by members of 
     the officer's or employee's family residing in his or her 
     household.
       Section 5 of these regulations is based upon Canon 5C(4) of 
     the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
       Reimbursement or direct payment of travel expenses, 
     including the cost of transportation, lodging, and meals, may 
     be a gift and, if so, its acceptance is governed by these 
     regulations. A judge or employee may receive as a gift travel 
     expense reimbursement for the judge or employee and one 
     relative incident to the judge's attendance at a bar-related 
     function or at an activity devoted to the improvement of the 
     law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. A 
     report of the payment of travel expenses as a gift or 
     otherwise may be required on the Financial Disclosure Report.
       A judge covered by the Judicial Councils Reform and 
     Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 332(d)(1), 372(c)) who violates these regulations 
     shall be subject to discipline as provided in that Act. Any 
     other judicial officer or employee who violates these 
     regulations shall be subject to discipline in accordance with 
     existing customary practices.


                                 Notes

       1. The ``Regulations of the Judicial Conference of the 
     United States Under Title III of the Ethics Reform Act of 
     1989 Concerning Gifts'' were adopted on May 18, 1990, by the 
     Judicial Conference, through its Executive Committee.
       2. On August 15, 1990, the Judicial Conference, through its 
     Executive Committee, amended these regulations to implement 
     the prohibition against gifts to superiors as required by the 
     Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7351.
       3. At its March 1991 session, the Judicial Conference 
     amended these regulations to include procedures for 
     requesting advisory opinions from the Committee on Codes of 
     Conduct interpreting Title III and these regulations.
       4. These regulations were amended by the Judicial 
     Conference at its September 1991 session to cover the Tax 
     Court and the Sentencing Commission, exclude compensation for 
     teaching received by senior judges from the 15% cap on 
     outside earned income, and make certain minor technical 
     corrections.
       5. The Judicial Conference amended these regulations at its 
     March 1992 session to cover judges and employees of the Court 
     of Veterans Appeals.
     
[[Page S 10855]]

       6. At its September 1994 session, the Judicial Conference 
     renumbered these regulations and revised them to include a 
     new definition of the term ``gift;'' a new section 4(a) 
     prohibiting the solicitation of gifts; revised sections 4(b), 
     5(b), and 6 incorporating general limitations on the 
     acceptance of gifts; a new section 5(h) permitting most 
     employees to accept gifts of minimal value; and a new section 
     9 regarding the return or disposal of gifts that may not 
     properly be accepted.

  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered? Did 
the Senator from West Virginia want the yeas and nays?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator from West Virginia seek the yeas and 
nays?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Byrd 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send to the 
desk an amendment by Senator Stevens that has been accepted by both 
sides. I realize this amends the unanimous consent procedure that has 
been agreed to by both sides. The amendment states the Rules Committee 
would be allowed to accept gifts on behalf of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection, but shall we yield back 
the time on my amendment first?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield all time on this side on the Byrd 
amendment.
  I will take up the Stevens amendment after the vote on the Byrd 
amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield my time and I thank the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 1878

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] and 
the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 341 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--23

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Domenici
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Mack
     Moynihan
     Packwood
     Roth
     Santorum
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inhofe
     Murkowski
       
  So the amendment (No. 1878) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Stevens on behalf of 
the Rules Committee. The amendment would clarify that the Rules 
Committee is authorized to accept gifts on behalf of the Senate. It is 
my understanding this amendment is acceptable to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1879

(Purpose: To allow the Rules Committee to accept gifts on behalf of the 
                                Senate)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Stevens, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1879.

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

       At the end of the substitute amendment, add the following:

     SEC. 3. ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS BY THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, on behalf 
     of the Senate, may accept a gift if the gift does not involve 
     any duty, burden, or condition, or is not made dependent upon 
     some future performance by the United States. The Committee 
     on Rules and Administration is authorized to promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this section.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 1879) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, the next item on the agenda, I believe, is 
the so-called Rockefeller amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FORD. I have been advised that Senator Rockefeller will not offer 
that amendment. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
and the time assigned to it be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 1880
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] is recognized to offer an amendment on which 
there shall be 1 hour of debate equally divided.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President and my colleagues, many of whom I know have travel 
plans, I think we have now come to a very good, solid agreement so I do 
not think we will need an hour for debate. I think we can do this in 
just a few minutes.
  The amendment that I am sending to the desk makes a great deal of 
sense. What we are going to do in this amendment is we will have--this 
goes back to a debate we had just about an hour ago in this Chamber.
  Anything under $10 is de minimis, and that does not count toward the 
aggregate. Then anything above $10 counts toward what will be an 
aggregate limit that Senators cannot go beyond, in terms of receiving 
meals or any kind of gift from any lobbyist or other special interest. 
Likewise, we can keep the $50; anything over $50 cannot be accepted.
  So, Madam President, I think we are back on the reform track. The 
concern that some of us had about the prior amendment--and frankly, I 
say this to my good friend from Louisiana, I think this was more just a 
misunderstanding--we did not really see an aggregate limit and saw it 
as being very open-ended, in which case gifts could be given and gifts 
could be received in perpetuity, as long as they were under $50. This 
may have been an honest confusion. Now we have an amendment that brings 
us together. It sets some very reasonable standards. I know the Senator 
from Arizona wants to speak. I send this amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S 10856]]

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. McCain and Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1880.

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

       Strike paragraph 1(a) and insert in lieu there of the 
     following:
       ``1. (a)(1) No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate 
     shall knowingly accept a gift except as provided in this 
     rule.
       ``(2) A Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift 
     (other than cash or cash equivalent) which the Member, 
     officer, or employee reasonably and in good faith believes to 
     have a value of less than $50, and a cumulative value from 
     one source during a calendar year of less than $100. No gift 
     with a value below $10 shall count towards the $100 annual 
     limit.'' 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.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Minnesota for this amendment, and it is very important. It is a very, 
very important amendment because, basically, it aggregates. So, 
therefore, I think my friend from Minnesota will agree with me, the 
ultimate effect is we have gone from the original bill, which was a 
$20-$50 to $50 and $100 with aggregation. So there has been an 
increase, not one that the sponsors of this legislation supported, but 
far, far different--far, far different--from the amendment that was 
adopted which allowed someone to take 49.99 dollars' worth every day 
from the same person. Now that can happen twice.
  I think it strengthens the bill dramatically, and I appreciate the 
fact that the Senator from Minnesota uses his amendment for this, 
because it makes a significant change in this bill as to how it would 
have looked with the passage of the Lott amendment. I want to thank the 
Senator from Minnesota for that. I am glad it is going to be accepted 
on both sides.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I yield whatever time the Senator 
from Michigan needs.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me congratulate the Senator from 
Minnesota and all the others who have worked on this amendment. Those 
of us who opposed the Lott amendment saw two problems with that 
amendment. First, was the limit of $50 was too high. We preferred the 
executive limit branch of $20.
  The second problem with the Lott amendment that we saw was that it 
allowed unlimited gifts under $50, because under $50 did not count 
toward the aggregate. That was the second big problem that we saw with 
the Lott amendment.
  The Wellstone amendment cures the second problem, and I want to thank 
the Senator from Mississippi and others who have worked on this matter. 
We have tried to work through most of the problems, and we really 
succeeded. We did a lot of good work in the last few days. We solved 
almost all the problems--not quite all--and we created a few for 
ourselves as well. But nonetheless, I think this represents significant 
progress.
  I want to, again, thank the Senator from Minnesota--the Senator from 
Arizona has worked so, so hard on this whole bill--for improving the 
Lott amendment in this way.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I yield whatever time the Senator 
from Wisconsin needs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am not new to the legislative 
process. I am new to the Senate. I have been a legislative officer for 
13 years. I have gotten used to the ups and downs. I never thought I 
would experience a situation where we lost and then realize we actually 
won. I just went through that.
  I was very disappointed in the last vote because of the reasons I 
stated. The original McConnell suggested amendment would have allowed 
up to $100 a day from the same source. So we came up with a figure 
potential of $36,500. Senator McConnell did reverse his position on 
that and cosponsored the McCain amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I assume the Senator is familiar with 
the legislative process around here. We often begin for purposes of 
negotiation. I will say, continuing to meet on the first product is not 
inconsistent with the spirit of bipartisanship, with which we have come 
to conclusion.
  We have a good bill everybody can feel proud to have participated in. 
I think we proceeded with the best sense of bipartisanship. As Senator 
Byrd indicated yesterday, it seems to me that we need a little bit more 
of that around here. I think it would be good for all of us.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. My purpose in rising is to indicate how pleased I am in 
how the bipartisan process has worked its way. I merely want to be 
clear, because there were some representations made about our proposal 
about an hour ago that were just plain wrong. I want to make sure the 
Record is clear.
  We have now reached agreement in this body on aggregation, that there 
should be an aggregated total of $100. I would have preferred $50. In 
fact, I would have preferred zero, as we have in Wisconsin.
  The key change now achieved, the only real exception to that, is the 
amount under $10 is not counted. That is a huge difference between not 
counting everything under $50, at least back in my home State. It would 
be nearly impossible for someone to gain in this system, to have to run 
around and get a gift for under $10.
  Let me say, I do not believe anybody in this body would ever do 
anything like that or has done anything like that. I just think the 
American people want to see a set of rules that they can look at and 
say on their face, guaranteed, this will not happen.
  I am very pleased. I want to thank the Senator from Mississippi, and 
others, as well as, of course, Senator Wellstone for coming to this 
conclusion. I believe it does bring us at least 90 percent of the way 
toward the ultimate reform that ought to occur.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. I want to point out the Senator from Kentucky has been an 
active participant in all the negotiations. We appreciate his efforts 
and comity and accommodations. He, and others mentioned by the Senator 
from Michigan, deserves great credit for showing a spirit of 
compromise. We know how strongly held his views are.
  There is no doubt a week ago, I say to my friends, no one believed we 
would be where we are today. It took a great deal of compromise on the 
part of the original sponsors of the bill and also on the part of the 
Senator from Kentucky, as well as others and, of course, the great 
facilitator, the Senator from Mississippi.
  I hope the record is clear that this was a bipartisan effort, 
although it is still fraught with a significant amount of controversy.
  I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, my understanding is we have strong 
support. We are just going to voice vote this. I believe that the vote 
on the individual gifts was a mistaken vote, because we did not have 
the aggregate limit. I think that was a loophole we did not want to 
have.
  We have come together now. That is what matters. I thank Senator 
McCain. It has been really fascinating working with the Senator from 
Arizona, and that is the way I describe it. It has been an experience I 
will write about in my journal. I appreciate working with him.
  I thank Senator Levin, who perhaps has the most knowledge about these 
issues on reform and has been at this as long as anybody in the Senate.
  I thank Senator Lautenberg for his fine work, and certainly my 
colleague from Wisconsin. I love having him as a colleague in the 
neighboring State of Wisconsin. Also, Senator Breaux, Senator 
McConnell, Senator Lott, the majority leader.
  We have now come together. We are ready to vote on this. I am very 
proud 

[[Page S 10857]]
of what I think is a reform bill that is going to make a real 
difference.
  I yield the floor and hope we move to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. McCAIN. Did the Senator yield back the remainder of his time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, we yield back the remainder of our time on 
this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 1880) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority leader 
is recognized to offer an amendment, on which there will be 35 minutes 
for debate.
  Mr. DOLE. I withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I think it is very important that 
everyone recognize the significance of what we in the Senate are doing 
by reforming the rules by which Members of the Senate may accept gifts. 
I strongly support a fair and workable gift reform bill and hope very 
much that the House of Representatives will see fit to swiftly pass 
similar legislation.
  The Senate need not and will not wait for the House of 
Representatives to act. We, upon passing this bill, will pass a Senate 
resolution amending the rules of the Senate to reflect the new gift 
provisions. What I want to touch on very briefly is the significance of 
amending the Senate rules. The amending of our rules represents a 
significant act. While some have suggested that we must and can only 
enact legislation to achieve reform, and while I intend to support such 
legislation, the fact is that we in the Senate will have achieved real 
gift reform when we pass a resolution amending our rules. The rules of 
the Senate, and of the House of Representatives, are full legal 
authorities promulgated under the express grant of power of article I, 
section 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Because we are acting from a direct 
grant of constitutional authority, these rules are for all intents and 
purposes ``laws.''
  I emphasize this point because while the great weight of 
constitutional authority has long endorsed the significance, the power, 
and the role as law of the rules of the Senate and the House, a few 
recent court decisions have seemed to go against this overwhelming 
weight of authority. But no aberrational decisions of the lower courts 
should change in any way the fact that by amending the rules of the 
Senate we are acting under our constitutional grant of authority and we 
are taking a significant step having the full force and effect of law.
  Madam President, I am pleased that this legislation is before us 
today, and I support its passage.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, recent polls have shown that public 
approval of Congress is dismally low. The American people have tired of 
what they perceive as business as usual in Washington. A politician has 
ceased to be a word to describe a political leader, but instead it 
embodies a perception of Members of Congress who pander to special 
interest and are steeped in corruption. It saddens me to think that the 
greatest deliberative body in the world and the very bedrock of our 
democracy is held in such ill repute. While I do not think gifts 
necessarily translate into influence peddling by special interests, we 
need to avoid all appearances of impropriety if we are serious about 
regaining the public trust.
  Our business as legislators is invalid and inconsequential if we 
cannot command the respect of the people we serve. The Lobbying 
Disclosure Act of 1995 and the Senate gift rule reforms will not wholly 
restore the public's confidence in the institution in which we serve, 
but I believe they take significant steps in the right direction. The 
status quo is not sufficient, and I am encouraged by the bipartisan 
support for these measures. I have adopted a gift ban for myself, and I 
welcome the extension of a similar policy to the entire Senate.
  The time has come for the reforms proposed in these two pieces of 
legislation. We must be guided by the premise that the public's trust 
and confidence are more important than anything else. This bill 
eliminates many appearances of impropriety and it enables us to make 
strides at restoring the people's faith in democracy.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, there is no question that we need gift and 
lobbying reform. I believe every Member of the Senate agrees on that 
point.
  But let us not fool ourselves. The impact of any gift reform bill we 
adopt--both substantively and in terms of public perception--will be 
minimal. I say this because of my firm conviction that the need for 
gift reform is utterly dwarfed by the need to clean up our campaign 
finance system. If we ban gifts without adopting campaign finance 
reform, a senator would not be allowed to accept a $51 dinner from an 
individual, but during the dinner that individual could hand the 
Senator a check for $1,000. I hope that once we complete this debate, 
we will go on to campaign finance and adopt real reform for the 
American people.
  I hope that in adopting gift reform legislation we don't become so 
hidebound by rules and regulations that it becomes difficult to do our 
jobs. In going about their every-day business, Senators should not 
constantly be asking ethics attorneys to decipher what is and what is 
not allowed. Careers should not rise or fall on the answers to a never-
ending parade of nit-picking questions. That would be unfortunate and 
unfair.
  Instead of engaging in a picayune debate over a suffocating code of 
conduct, I wish we could have a full-blown discussion about the concept 
of personal responsibility in the Senate and in society at-large. This 
is a principle that unfortunately has eroded over the years, in part 
due to the growth of rules and ethics codes governing every aspects of 
our lives. These rules are all well-intentioned, and many of them are 
needed. But they have had the unintended consequence of allowing us to 
pass the buck when we face moral dilemmas large and small. Instead of 
consulting our consciences, we call the ethics officer. Instead of 
taking responsibility for our actions and their results, we hide behind 
the opinions of attorneys and experts.
  I believe that individual Senators know how to judge right from wrong 
in their dealings with lobbyists and others. I believe Senators should 
be accountable to their consciences and to their constituents--not to a 
code of rules and regulations.
  My pledge has always been that I do nothing in my conduct as a 
Senator that I cannot explain to the people of Connecticut. I think 
that is a rigorous, fair and accountable standard to which we should 
all adhere.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, as I stated when the Senate acted on gift 
ban legislation last year, we have ventured into the treacherous shoals 
of self-regulation.
  I am supporting the bill, as indeed I have always supported reforms 
that will benefit the Senate as an institution. But I support this bill 
with somewhat muted enthusiasm.
  In passing this bill, we are responding once again to the public's 
perception of the political process and the public's presumption of 
what our standards and motives may be.
  These perceptions and presumptions must be dealt with, to be sure, 
but I for one find them to be often inaccurate and frequently 
demeaning. And the proposed remedies usually are unduly intrusive.
  We should be under no illusion, I believe, that public perceptions, 
amplified by media attention, can be neutralized or satisfied by 
legislative fiat.
  In the final analysis, the only way to change or disprove public 
perceptions and presumptions is for each of us to demonstrate integrity 
in all our actions.
  Guidelines and rules are helpful, to be sure. But it seems to me that 
the best guidelines are the simplest.
  I am troubled by the fact that the legislation we have passed does 
not meet the test of simplicity. It includes 23 exceptions and 
exemptions, covering ten pages of the bill, each of which is subject to 
expanded interpretation and challenge.
  I regret, also, that the bill imposes rigid dollar limits, which 
while more reasonable than originally proposed, still seem unduly 
restrictive. I was pleased to support the Lott amendment raising the 
ceiling on aggregated giving, but the subsequently adopted threshold 
for aggregating seems unreasonably low. 

[[Page S 10858]]

  The legislation of course does have redeeming features. One of the 
most significant, to my mind, is the prohibition on acceptance of 
elaborate and luxurious recreational trips at lobbyists' expense.
  And the basic intent of the legislation certainly is praiseworthy, 
namely to remove extraneous and improper influence, when it does occur, 
from the legislative process.
  Finally, I would applaud the fine sense of compromise that prevailed 
in winning approval of the legislation without time consuming and 
acrimonious debate. For that, the Senate and the Nation are better off.
                vote on amendment no. 1872, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the substitute amendment 
offered by Senator McCain, No. 1872.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, before that, I am just going to spend 30 
seconds to clarify a point on the request of Senator Johnston, if I 
have time. He has asked a question about hospitality at an embassy, at 
a chancellery. I wanted to assure him and the body, at his request, 
that the personal hospitality exception is intended to cover such 
hospitality at embassies and chancelleries.
  Madam President, I want to pay particular tribute to Linda Gustitus 
and Peter Levine of my staff.
  Night after night, week after week, month after month, they 
successfully pulled ideas into workable solutions in both lobby reform 
and gift reform. What a week of political reform these two great 
staffers helped produce. How much this Senate and this Nation and I 
personally owe them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the McCain 
amendment No. 1872.
  The amendment (No. 1872), as modified, as amended, was agreed to.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
   The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was 
read the third time.

                          ____________________