Transcript - Senate Floor: Amendment No. 1680 to Amendment No. 1679 | Factba.se

Conrad Burns

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the Murkowski amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

Conrad Burns

Mr. President, I think we have looked at the accumulation of debt, as was reported by the Senator from Iowa. This date is noted across the country as Tax Freedom Day and the deficit continues and the accumulation of debt continues. This is the latest it has ever come in the year, the 4th day of May, 2 days longer than a year ago. So I think what we are looking for here is, if we are really serious about taking not only what the subject of this bill has been, but also some fiscal responsibility -- I have long believed that if Congress really and earnestly is concerned about accountability and responsibility, there are two things that should be done. This is what I am told when I go home.

Conrad Burns

First, any legislation that is passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, and as a result, that law goes to a faceless bureaucracy to write the administrative rules -- once the rules have been written and they are entered into the Federal Register they become the law of the land. So Members of Congress go home and one day they find out from their constituency, "Look at this law that you have passed. Look what it has done to me." So Members of Congress look at it and they say, "When we passed it, that was not the intent of the law." I suggest on some pieces of legislation, after those rules are written, they should come back to the Congress for the final OK by the Congress. That is one.

Conrad Burns

For responsibility and accountability -- for what we have said was a pay raise here a couple of years ago to bring some more accountability to this body -- if we want to vote late at night and worry about who is going to dinner, and who is not -- then I think maybe that should be reflected in the pay of the people who serve in this body.

Conrad Burns

The other day I raised a little Cain about bonuses that went to the Social Security people, bonuses that went to people who have not worked in the Social Security but for 2\1/2\ to 3 months and end up with a $9,000 bonus.

Conrad Burns

Do you think they earned it? I do not think so, especially when Social Security comes to Congress asking for more money so they can catch up on the backlog of disability payments. So as a result of that, they are not showing their responsibility. Maybe we who are elected should show ours.

Conrad Burns

So I offer this amendment as a 15-percent pay cut for Members of Congress as a second-degree amendment to the Murkowski amendment.

Conrad Burns

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Conrad Burns

Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Frank Murkowski

I would like to speak very briefly on the second- degree amendment offered by my friend from Montana.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Frank Murkowski

Mr. President, I think our friend from Montana has brought up an appropriate consideration relative to the realities that we live in, and that is this Nation has accrued approximately $4.5 trillion of debt.

Frank Murkowski

The significance of that is often overlooked because it is pretty hard to comprehend that kind of a number. But let me share with my colleagues a certain reality associated with that, and that is, about 14 percent of our current budget is interest on our accumulated debt.

Frank Murkowski

That does not mean much, but let us take it one step further and recognize that we are committed to fund interest on that debt. The question legitimately is, how are we funding that interest on the debt? We are borrowing that interest on the debt. Think of the significance of that. We are borrowing in excess of $213 billion to pay interest on our $4.5 trillion worth of debt.

Frank Murkowski

We are not addressing entitlement growth because we simply do not have the self-discipline to address it in a responsible manner, either through caps or freezing it at some level. So it continues to grow.

Frank Murkowski

But let us look at the merits of what we mean when we talk about borrowing somewhere in excess of $212 billion for interest. That does not increase inventory, it does not provide jobs, it does not provide any social programs. It does not provide any defense budget.

Frank Murkowski

If you went to your banker, Mr. President, and said, "I need a loan because I have to make a payment," you might get the loan if you said you wanted to make the payment to pay a portion of your principal down. But if you asked him or her for a loan so you could pay your interest, you probably would not get it because you would be a very poor credit risk.

Frank Murkowski

That is the harsh reality of the condition of this Nation today. We are borrowing money to pay interest, and we are talking about the amendment of the Senator from Montana in the second degree cutting salaries. But we are continuing to expend more than we raise in revenue.

Frank Murkowski

There is a very simple process here, Mr. President. We have one or two alternatives: We either raise revenue or cut spending. The appropriate alternative, obviously, is to cut spending, but we do not have the discipline to do it.

Frank Murkowski

So I think as we address the merits of measures to cut spending, we should look at all measures and the amendment by the Senator from Montana relative to cutting salaries. At least he is cutting somewhere, and he is cutting pretty close to the heart when he proposes to cut Members' salaries 15 percent.

Frank Murkowski

We, as individual Senators, have to meet our obligations, but the Federal Government simply adds to the deficit for whatever else it needs. That is fiscal irresponsibility, Mr. President, and I think we should give more time and attention to the merits of it.

Frank Murkowski

There is a book out that some of my colleagues have read. It is "Bankruptcy 1995" by a gentleman by the name of Figgie. He may be off a few years, but he is right on target with what is happening in the United States, what happened in Central and South America in monetizing the debt.

Frank Murkowski

We are approaching a time in the future, perhaps, but nevertheless it is inevitable, where a bigger portion of our budget goes for interest on the debt. That is like owning a horse that eats while you and I sleep. It goes on and on and on and on. Unless you address it by paying down the principal, it simply gets bigger. When you borrow to pay the interest solely, you are digging a grave for this country step by step.

Frank Murkowski

So, Mr. President, I think this body should look at all provisions that suggest control of costs and particularly the merits of expanded collective debt, as we look at it today, $4.5 trillion.

Frank Murkowski

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Carl Levin

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Carl Levin

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Carl Levin

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of Senator Bumpers be allowed to be further modified.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Phil Gramm

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, how is it being modified?

Dale Bumpers

If I may explain this to the Senator from Texas, I have an amendment at the desk right now with a modification which covers the Senate rules only. In order to cover the House rules, too, which we must do, I would have to offer an amendment to that to amend the bill in two places, which as the Senator knows someone could object to, if we do not get a unanimous-consent request that I be permitted to amend the bill two places.

Phil Gramm

The Senator wants to apply the same thing to the House?

Dale Bumpers

Absolutely. That is all it does.

Phil Gramm

Dale Bumpers

That saves us an additional vote also.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Dale Bumpers

Mr. President, I send the modification to the desk and withdraw the existing modification.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:40 p.m. the Senate vote on the Bumpers amendment as just modified; that following disposition of the Bumpers amendment, Senator Stevens, or his designee, be recognized to move to table the Murkowski amendment relating to PAC contributions; that if a motion to table is made, a vote occur on that motion to table; and that following disposition of that amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on the Murkowski amendment relating to reimbursement for travel to and lodging at charitable events; that if a motion to table the Murkowski amendment regarding PAC contributions is not made, the Senate then proceed immediately to vote on the Burns second-degree amendment to the Murkowski amendment, the Burns amendment relating to pay cuts; and that following the vote on the Burns amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on the Murkowski amendment regarding PAC contributions, as amended, if amended; and that following disposition of that amendment, the Senate then proceed to vote on the Murkowski amendment regarding reimbursement for travel to and lodging at charitable events.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the majority leader?

Bob Dole

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if the Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, should decide not to move to table, then the procedure the Senator outlined will follow. There would be a separate vote on the Burns amendment and followed by the vote on the Murkowski amendment?

George J. Mitchell

That is correct.

Frank Murkowski

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and the Senator from Alaska does not intend to object, but I would like reasonable time to talk on both my amendments following the process that the majority leader has drawn out. It would be a short time.

George J. Mitchell

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, my request would have the first vote occur at 9:40. So there would be time for debate between now and 9:40. I would suggest that it be equally divided between the Senator from Alaska and the manager of the bill, or his designee. Is that agreeable to Senator Murkowski?

Frank Murkowski

The Senator from Alaska would like at least 10 minutes.

George J. Mitchell

He would have more than that.

Frank Murkowski

He has two amendments. I have not offered my second amendment. So I would like to have at least 10 minutes on my second amendment which I would offer after the vote on the Bumpers amendment and the disposition of the Burns-Murkowski amendment.

George J. Mitchell

I have no disagreement with that.

George J. Mitchell

I yield to the Republican leader.

Bob Dole

Why not proceed as the majority leader suggests and following disposition of the three amendments then the Senator would offer his second amendment?

Frank Murkowski

Yes. And I would like to talk on the second amendment for 10 minutes.

Bob Dole

Then we could debate it.

Frank Murkowski

That could be equally divided.

George J. Mitchell

The agreement I proposed contemplated voting on both of his amendments in succession.

Bob Dole

George J. Mitchell

I believe he wants 10 minutes between the vote on his first amendment and second amendment.

Frank Murkowski

The majority leader is correct.

George J. Mitchell

In addition to the debate time between now and 9:30.

Frank Murkowski

Yes. That would be on the pending amendment.

George J. Mitchell

I inquire of the Senator, if the manager were willing to divide the time between now and 9:40 so the Senator from Alaska would have 18 minutes and the manager 5 minutes, would that be agreeable to the Senator? Then we could have the votes as suggested.

Frank Murkowski

The Senator from Alaska would appreciate the majority leader accommodating him for at least 10 minutes prior to the vote on the second Murkowski amendment which would be the transportation issue.

George J. Mitchell

Then, Mr. President, I modify my request to have a period of 15 minutes between the last vote on the second Murkowski amendment and the immediately preceding amendment with 10 minutes of that allocated to the Senator from Alaska and 5 minutes to the manager or his designee.

Carl Levin

It better be evenly divided. There are a number of speakers.

George J. Mitchell

I am now advised others want to speak. We have 20 minutes equally divided between the last vote and immediately preceding vote to accommodate the Senator from Alaska.

Dennis DeConcini

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request of the majority leader?

Dennis DeConcini

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, yes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. the Senator from Arizona.

Dennis DeConcini

After that time the bill is open to further amendment or final passage?

George J. Mitchell

The bill is open to further amendment.

Dennis DeConcini

So not necessarily final passage tonight.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, if I may respond to the Senator, we have been attempting to get a finite list with a time for finishing the bill.

George J. Mitchell

I have been advised by our colleagues that no such agreement is possible until these votes occur but that after these votes occur it may be possible to get that. That is why I am doing it that way.

Dennis DeConcini

Mr. President, I suggest that we call the Four Seasons restaurant and be sure that the Senators there with the Prime Minister from Malaysia will be through with the dessert and coffee by 9:30. We do not want to rush them because we have been sitting around here for several hours now to accommodate them in a few minutes.

George J. Mitchell

I will see to it that such a call is made.

J. James Exon

Reserving the right to object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.

J. James Exon

I probably shall not, but I would like to inquire of the leader and the minority leader, I assume the parliamentary situation is that the Burns amendment to reduce salaries by 15 percent is a second- degree amendment to the Murkowski amendment, is that correct?

George J. Mitchell

I believe that is correct.

J. James Exon

I am making an inquiry, I guess, as to the situation with regard to what can and cannot be done under the rules. I am considering an amendment, I must tell the leader and the minority leader, possibly -- if it is possible to work this in before the vote on the Burns amendment -- to offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that all of those voting for the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana should, regardless of the outcome of the vote, agree publicly tonight that, even if the vote fails, they would indeed cut their salary by 15 percent.

J. James Exon

It seems to me that would be a totally reasonable proposition that we could offer.

J. James Exon

I have cosponsors to that, Mr. Leader.

J. James Exon

We are going through gyrations around here. It seems to me that, I will just advise the leader and the minority leader, if it is possible for me to offer such a sense-of-the-Senate resolution before the vote, the courageous vote to cut the salary by 15 percent, then I think it is time maybe that the U.S. Senate stand up.

J. James Exon

I will not use the word on the floor of the U.S. Senate that I would like to use in that regard, but I think many of these votes are put up strictly for political reasons. And I think maybe the best way to stop that would be to have a sense of the Senate, at least for those voting for the amendment to cut salaries by 15 percent by the Senator from Montana, to agree publicly, as they vote for that amendment, that they will cut their salaries by refunding that amount of money in some form for as long as they serve in the U.S. Senate. Maybe that would be one of these times when we could see how serious some of these amendments are.

J. James Exon

Possibly -- I cannot do that right now; I will not object -- but if the opportunity presents itself, I intend to offer such an amendment, hopefully, before the vote on the amendment being offered by the Senator from Montana.

J. James Exon

I do not object.

J. James Exon

I thank the leader.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, the Senator should understand that if the request I proposed is approved, then a vote may occur on the Burns amendment prior to the time that he would be able to offer a sense of the Senate.

George J. Mitchell

I am grateful for his consideration. May I suggest to the Senator that the bill, after completion of these votes, will still be open to amendment, and he may then offer an amendment. It may not be as desirable as doing it before, but I think it would have the same effect.

Bob Dole

Would the Senator yield?

George J. Mitchell

I yield to the Republican leader.

Bob Dole

I think if you could extend that sense of the Senate to apply to those who voted earlier today on the gift ban -- I mean, I cannot believe any politics was involved in that at all. Certainly that was all statesmanship, and the midnight pay cut is something else.

Bob Dole

But there may be a way to construct a sense-of-the-Senate resolution we could all vote for, including the pay raise and the gift ban and all the shenanigans that have been going on all day here.

J. James Exon

Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Kansas makes a very good point, although there is some difference between gifts. I intend to support the gift restraints, in all sincerity, as I have supported them for a long, long time. There is some kind of a difference. You can accept a gift and keep it a secret and not say anything about it. Not so with your salary in the U.S. Senate. If people want their salary cut, and if they so vote but it fails, then I think that they should voluntarily agree to make their tax return, or that portion of their tax return, public each and every year to indicate the seriousness of their convictions.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I renew my request.

Dennis DeConcini

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Dennis DeConcini

I would like to ask the majority leader, if the majority will indulge me for a moment, does the majority leader anticipate we will be in tomorrow with votes?

George J. Mitchell

Unless we finish this bill tonight.

Bob Dole

And we have Bosnia.

George J. Mitchell

And we have the Bosnia matter.

Dennis DeConcini

Is the answer, more or less, that we are going to be in tomorrow, with votes? Is that what it appears to be now?

Bob Dole

If the majority leader will yield, I assume there is going to a considerable amount of debate on Bosnia. I am not certain there will be a vote tomorrow.

Dennis DeConcini

The reason I ask -- it seems to me it is late -- why do not we put these votes off until tomorrow morning?

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I will respond to that. We have had a lengthy delay here for three reasons.

George J. Mitchell

First is that discussions were occurring regarding the substance of the bill in an effort to reach agreement on various provisions that would obviate the necessity of having votes to dispose of the matter. The second was, as the Senator has noted, to accommodate a group of Senators who left to have dinner with a foreign head of government who is in Washington at this time. And the third has been to try to resolve this issue of when we vote.

George J. Mitchell

It is not uncommon. It occurs all the time.

George J. Mitchell

There is a large number of Senators who want to finish the bill tonight and have no votes tomorrow. There is an equally large number of Senators who want to leave tonight -- maybe a smaller number of Senators, but a number of them -- who want to have no more votes tonight and put all the votes off until tomorrow morning.

George J. Mitchell

I am trying very hard to reconcile what are almost irreconcilable interests.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I renew my request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the majority leader's modified unanimous-consent request is agreed to.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, Senators should be aware, and I hope all will be notified, that the votes tonight will begin at 9:40 p.m. on the Bumpers amendment, and there will be at least three votes, and possibly four, depending on what occurs during the votes.

George J. Mitchell

I thank my colleagues for their patience and cooperation.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm is recognized.

George J. Mitchell

Would the Senator yield for just one moment?

Phil Gramm

I am glad to yield.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I neglected, in making my request, to ask consent that no second-degree amendments be in order to Senator Murkowski's amendment regarding reimbursement for travel to and lodging at charitable events. I now ask that my request be further modified to incorporate that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Without objection, the unanimous-consent, as further modified, is agreed to.

The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm.

Phil Gramm

Mr. President, I have remained silent all day during this debate in the hope that no one would remember that I was here. But I would just like to make a couple of comments about what we have been doing all day long.

Phil Gramm

It seems to me that there are Members of the Senate who have concluded that the American people are unhappy with us. And indeed they are unhappy with us because we have raised their taxes, squandered their money, regulated their business, refused to provide quality services in education and law enforcement and, in short, they are just outraged that we are doing a bad job.

Phil Gramm

Now, there seem to be some people who think that if we brutalize ourselves a little -- first, by saying, well, if somebody gave you a Christmas tree and it was worth more than $20, you had to give it back.

Phil Gramm

Now we have an amendment saying if the Christmas tree is worth a nickel, you cannot take it.

Phil Gramm

My point is this: If you want to take a Christmas tree as a gift, take it. If you do not, do not. But I do not think the American people are going to be impressed, because it is not what we are doing to ourselves that they are mad about, it is what we are doing to them.

Phil Gramm

I do not think they are going to feel better if we slap ourselves around a couple of times because we will still be slapping them around. What we ought to be doing is trying to undo the bad things we do to the people. But penalizing ourselves in this fashion simply makes us look silly. I am sure there are people who thought when we started this debate that somehow it was going to make us look good. I think, frankly, it has made the whole institution and every Member look silly.

Phil Gramm

I hope there is a good baseball game on television tonight that somebody is watching. I hope my mama is not watching this process when we are debating silly, trivial things, so many that are unbecoming to the U.S. Senate, when there is so much real work to be done, when there are so many fundamental issues that ought to be decided and on which we should be concentrating.

Phil Gramm

I do not know in the big picture if today's debate will make any difference, but so much of it seems to trivialize the greatest deliberative body in history. I just wanted to get up and say that I do not think the U.S. Senate has covered itself in glory today. I think it is too bad. Again, I do not think that in the process of conducting this silly debate that we are making people like us more. They want us to stop doing bad things to them and nothing we do to ourselves will change that.

Phil Gramm

I yield the floor.

Phil Gramm

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I will only say, with respect to comments made by the Senator, that what is silly or trivial, is of course a subjective judgment that is in the eye of the beholder. I think what the Senator has said about silly and trivial things coming before the Senate is true as to many things other than what has occurred today. We spend a lot of time on things that I feel are silly and trivial and others feel are silly and trivial. I respect his point of view. Perhaps it will lead us to think about some of the other things we do in this Senate that many of us regard as silly and trivial.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski].

Frank Murkowski

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I want to make sure my colleagues understand the amendment before us. My amendment is to prohibit all political contributions from political action committees. I think it is important for the record to note that, since the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the number of PAC's has grown from 680 in 1974 to 4,192 in 1992. Think of that growth when you look at the impact of political action committees as we reflect on the merits of reform legislation. PAC contributions increased from $12.5 million to $180 million, which is an increase of more than 400 percent in real terms. In 1992, 55 percent of the House winners received more than half their contributions from PAC's.

Frank Murkowski

The situation is worse than is reflected by these numbers, because almost all corporate and trade PAC money, 90 percent, went to incumbents. Almost all won reelection.

Frank Murkowski

So I encourage my colleagues to reflect a little bit on how the American public is going to view this vote. Are they going to view it as business as usual where there is an effort to vote down or table my amendment to prohibit political action committee contributions coming in? This legislation would prohibit a Senator specifically from accepting any gift, directly or indirectly, from a political action committee. Banning PAC contributions was really a key part in the Republican campaign reform bill. I simply extend that concept to ban contributions from lobbyists as well.

Frank Murkowski

I might add, this proposed amendment would apply to both the House and Senate. Campaign reform legislation is now in conference. We hear it will be brought to the floor but oftentimes these things get bogged down in conference. My amendment provides Senators the chance to block this special influence of the PAC's, as well as the lobbyist. It is basically 2 for 1. We get an opportunity with this vote to ban both the PAC's and the lobbyist. Perhaps it is poetic justice that Members who insist on banning all gifts, all gifts from lobbyists, many of whom are facing reelection in the near future, but are against extending it to political action committees.

Frank Murkowski

Mr. President, I think we have before us an opportunity to address this forthrightly, recognizing that the American public feels there is too much influence from PAC's and this is a way to address that influence as we look at the vote we are about to initiate from the Senator from Arkansas, which would prohibit all gifts. That is the question before us. Following that will be my amendment to prohibit all political action committee contribution, contribution from political action committees.

Frank Murkowski

I have not heard any of my colleagues speak against the amendment proposed by the Senator from Alaska, which I find rather interesting. It will be equally interesting to see the vote count on this amendment when the time is up.

Frank Murkowski

I have no further comments at this time. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin].

Carl Levin

Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Alaska is an amendment which I personally support. I do think the fact that PAC contributions are made and are easily connected -- and I think wrongly connected -- but nonetheless easily connected to people's votes in the media has undermined confidence in this Government. When people read that someone gets a $5,000 contribution from a PAC and then votes in a way which that PAC supports, people jump to a conclusion that there is a connection between the two. That creates a problem in terms of public confidence and public credibility. I think we have to correct it by eliminating those PAC contributions. So I support the Murkowski amendment. I think he is right in terms of trying to raise the level of public confidence in this country.

Carl Levin

The same thing is true with gifts from lobbyists. It is a serious issue, because most people think the lobbyists control the Federal Government. In the most recent public opinion poll -- when a scientific cross-section of Americans was asked "Which of the following do you think really controls the Federal Government in Washington?" -- 7 percent say the President; 22 percent say the Congress; 50 percent say the lobbyists and the special interests, 50 percent.

Carl Levin

We have to do whatever we reasonably can to inspire public confidence in Government. One of the ways we can do it is to control the gifts of meals, of tickets, of travel by lobbyists. That is what this gifts bill is all about. That is why it is serious business. It is serious business because it involves the public confidence. And in a democracy you better have public confidence because if you do not, your democracy is going to be a lot weaker.

Carl Levin

That is what the gifts bill is about -- trying to promote public confidence in Government by controlling what the public knows happens around here, which are tickets coming from lobbyists, meals paid for by lobbyists, travel paid by lobbyists. That is what we are trying to end in this gifts bill. It is serious business. It is not trivial business. It is not a waste of this Senate's time to be debating this today -- quite the opposite. If we can control some of the gifts which have created this impression in the public mind that this Government is run by lobbyists, we will be making a significant contribution, I believe, to this great democracy of ours. So let us get on with it.

Carl Levin

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Wallop is recognized.

Malcolm Wallop

Mr. President, I had thought when I announced that I was not going to run for reelection, that it would be a sad moment for me. Mr. President, I have decided that it was perhaps the wisest decision of my political career.

Ted Stevens

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Ted Stevens

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 9:40 having arrived, under the previous order, the question now is on agreeing to amendment No. 1678, as modified, offered by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers].

The yeas and nays have been ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.

Wendell Ford

I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is necessarily absent.

Wendell Ford

I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent because of illness.

Alan Simpson

I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood] are necessarily absent.

Ted Stevens

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The question now occurs on amendment 1680 offered by the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns].

Bob Dole

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Montana. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

Wendell Ford

I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is necessarily absent.

Wendell Ford

I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent because of illness.

Alan Simpson

I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood] are necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment 1679 offered by the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski].

Frank Murkowski

Madam President, I would like to very briefly explain the intent of the amendment. The amendment offered by myself prohibits the Senate --

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will note to the Senator that debate is not in order.

Frank Murkowski

I ask unanimous consent that I may express the intent of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent?

Dennis DeConcini

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

George J. Mitchell

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alaska be recognized for 30 seconds to explain the intent of his amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Frank Murkowski

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays and will make a brief explanation.

Frank Murkowski

The amendment would prohibit the Senator from accepting any gift directly or indirectly from a political action committee.

Frank Murkowski

We are talking about trying to ban gifts here. My amendment merely adds this prohibition to include what some would consider a very important type of gift, a political contribution from a PAC.

Frank Murkowski

I thank the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.

Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Alaska. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

Wendell Ford

I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is necessarily absent.

Wendell Ford

I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent because of illness.

Alan Simpson

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood] are necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Frank Murkowski

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Carl Levin

I move to lay that motion on the table.

Carl Levin

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Alaska is recognized to offer an amendment.

The Senator from Alaska.

Frank Murkowski

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

Frank Murkowski

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 20 minutes of debate equally divided.

Frank Murkowski

Madam President, the amendment I presented would strike from the committee substitute the provision which prohibits Members of Congress from receiving private reimbursement for travel, food and lodging in connection with a charitable event.

Frank Murkowski

Under this amendment such reimbursements would be permitted so long as the reimbursement was not made by a registered lobbyist or foreign agent. We have seen charitable events such as Senator Garn's Ski Cup, which goes for the Children's Hospital in Salt Lake City. It would be prohibited for Members supporting that event as a consequence of the underlying amendment.

Frank Murkowski

In my State of Alaska, were we to attempt to have a charity event, we would be prohibited because transportation is not provided. The injustice of this is that under the committee substitute large charitable organizations that have the resources to have their fundraisers in Washington, DC will be able to invite Members of Congress to their events because, under the committee amendment, the underlying amendment, a Member of Congress may accept -- and this is the injustice -- a Member of Congress may accept an offer to attend such an event, even if the event is a $1000 a plate dinner to raise funds for whatever purpose. But we who are out in the west, out far away, simply are excluded from that opportunity.

Frank Murkowski

My amendment would allow reimbursement for lodging and transportation in connection with charitable events only.

Frank Murkowski

Madam President, these events do not benefit Senators, as do political fundraisers and legal defense funds. I would like to point out that we have protected ourselves on political fundraisers, and the American public is going to question our wisdom, to say the least. We have done the same with regard to our legal defense funds, as well as political fundraisers.

Frank Murkowski

One would ask and the American people will ask each of us why we have a double standard: One for political events where travel and lodging can be reimbursed and another standard for charitable events where expenses simply cannot be reimbursed.

Frank Murkowski

Madam President, the inequity is obvious. I would like to refer specifically to our rules under Interpretive Ruling No. 193. The question is: May a Senator accept travel expenses from an official of a district's political party organization in return for his or her appearance at a rally sponsored by that organization?

Frank Murkowski

Rule 35 excepts from the definition of "gifts, anything of value, including transportation for which consideration of equal or greater value is received. Travel incident to a political appearance would appear to meet this consideration." So there we have it, Madam President. I ask the manager of the underlying amendment if I understand that under the provisions of the underlying bill in the Senate rules, any Senator can attend a political fundraiser and accept reimbursement for travel and lodging expenses? I ask that of the floor manager. Perhaps the floor manager was in conversation.

Carl Levin

Perhaps the chairman of the Rules Committee could respond relative to existing rules, but for whom is the reimbursement you are referring to in your question?

Frank Murkowski

I am referring to Interpretive Ruling 193 and the reimbursements would be to a fellow Senator.

Carl Levin

I think you have to check with the Ethics Committee.

Frank Murkowski

I just read the ruling and, indeed, it is reimbursable. The example specifically is if a Senator could attend a fundraiser for, say, the California Democratic Committee in Los Angeles, including a movie preview and an expensive dinner surrounded by lobbyists, and have his or her hotel and travel and all other expenses paid for by the California Democratic Committee. The answer, of course, under the rules, is absolutely yes, we are not prohibiting ourselves from that through this revolution of so-called gift legislation.

Frank Murkowski

But the same Senator could not have his or her expenses reimbursed for participation in a fundraising event for a charitable organization that was raising money for, say, cancer detection for poor people. There is the inconsistency, and that is the justification for my amendment.

Frank Murkowski

The American people are going to see through this if, indeed, we do not support and recognize that we have a legitimate contribution to make to charities in this country and it can be made in an honorable manner in spite of the opinion of some who have criticized some of the charities and particularly that of Senator Garn's ski cup where they have participated for an extended period of time. I thank the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? Who yields time?

Paul Wellstone

If I can have 3 minutes.

Carl Levin

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 3 minutes.

Paul Wellstone

Madam President, I have not had a chance to see this amendment, and I cannot speak to the interpretation to which the Senator from Alaska spoke, but I do think this goes to the heart of Senator Levin's amendment and what we debated in the earlier part of the day.

Paul Wellstone

Clearly, Senators should be able to contribute to charities. We can do that. We can travel to gatherings on our own resources, and we can do all that. That is not really the issue. If the Senator will let me finish, that is not really the issue. The issue is what, in fact, has all too often been something that just does not seem at all credible, which is that we go to charities but it is at those gatherings -- whether it is golf, tennis, recreation, plus whatever else we do -- they may not be paid by lobbyists, but it is paid by the lobbyists' clients.

Paul Wellstone

That is what the Senator is talking about. To the extent you have some other party that is paying your expenses, then we run right smack back into the very problem to which I think this reform is trying to speak. I think this really goes very much against the Governmental Affairs Committee amendment. I think it is a huge mistake. I think it becomes a huge loophole.

Paul Wellstone

It is the very thing, quite frankly, if we are going to talk about perceptions -- and that is what we have been talking about throughout the day -- that has really gotten us into a lot of trouble. There is no reason why we need to have clients of lobbyists or other people paying for this. There is no reason we cannot do this on our own. I think it is a huge mistake.

Paul Wellstone

So I think the Senator's amendment really does very much undercut what Senator Levin had been proposing and what I think we have been supporting. I will let the Senator from Michigan expand on the remarks.

Frank Murkowski

Madam President, I intend to yield time to my friend, the senior Senator from Alaska. The fact is, I will respond to the Senator from Minnesota. Under the provision of the underlying bill and the Senate's rules, any Senator can attend a political fundraiser and accept reimbursement for travel and lodging expenses, but he cannot do it for a charitable event. That is what is wrong with it.

Frank Murkowski

I yield some time to my friend, the senior Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Alaska is recognized.

Ted Stevens

Madam President, I think Senator Murkowski has a point. I believe every Senator here has attended political fundraising events that have included the same kind of entertainment that has been criticized so harshly. Whether it is to go to a movie in Los Angeles or go to a golf event in Florida, if it is for political purposes, a Senator may go and have the amount completely reimbursed by the candidate's political action committee or the party that is raising money for another Senator or for any other candidate, and it is deemed to be acceptable. But if we have the same kind of event in Alaska, as Senator Murkowski has arranged this year, to raise money for a new breast cancer device for our State, that is not allowed.

Ted Stevens

I do not believe that that duplicity should be carried forward in this bill, and I support Senator Murkowski's concept that if it is legal to have such allowance for travel for hotel bills, for expenses and for entertainment for political purposes, it is just as legal to do that for charitable purposes.

Ted Stevens

I challenge any one of you. You all have participated in it. Why suddenly say, OK, right here in Washington, it is all right here in Washington, but it is not all right when you have to travel to the West to do it?

Ted Stevens

Any one of you know what it costs to travel to our State. These people are willing to participate and support the charities of our State, just as they are yours here. Why should we not have the same considerations that you have here?

Ted Stevens

I do believe this amendment is a valid one.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan.

Carl Levin

I yield myself 3 minutes.

Carl Levin

Madam President, the rule which the Senator from Alaska is referring to is existing law and existing interpretation which is not touched by this bill. The reimbursement which he is referring to, as I understand it, in his amendment is not reimbursement which is permitted under this bill. It is an interpretive ruling, No. 189, of existing rules and laws.

Carl Levin

If the Senator from Alaska thinks that that should be changed so that people cannot be reimbursed from their own campaign funds to go to a political function, then the Senator from Alaska should offer an amendment to tighten that restriction.

Carl Levin

But to throw out the key provision of this committee substitute, which is to end the kind of so-called charitable, but very significant, recreational trips which are taken by Members of Congress and paid for by the interests in this country that want to hobnob with Members of Congress at those events, would be a total reversal of what we did this morning.

Carl Levin

The Johnston amendment permitted this kind of recreational travel to a so-called charitable event. Our committee substitute does not do it.

Carl Levin

If you want to know what the issue really is -- I have these at the desk; we do not have the time to debate it -- read the transcripts of the TV shows that describe these events. Each of us has to decide in our own conscience whether or not we believe credibility is contributed to with these kinds of events. That is a decision for each of us. We made that decision, I thought, this morning with a very clear vote on the Johnston substitute to the committee amendment.

Carl Levin

That is what the issue is here with the Senator from Alaska. Do we wish to provide for this kind of recreational travel to a so-called charitable event. This morning we said no. And I think we based that to a significant degree on what we see happening at those events as portrayed in the national media.

Carl Levin

If we are comfortable with it, if we are not embarrassed by it, if we think it contributes to the credibility of this institution to have these events, then I presume people will vote that way. I do not. I have seen these events on the TV shows. I think we undermine public confidence when there is that kind of recreational travel to a so- called charitable event which typically -- typically -- will have half the money going to pay for the room and travel of Members that are going, and the other half roughly -- and this is just a rough estimate -- going to the charity.

Carl Levin

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

Frank Murkowski

Madam President, could I inquire how much time is remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has the floor.

Carl Levin

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The floor has been yielded. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

Frank Murkowski

May I ask how much time we have on this side, Madam President?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 26 seconds.

Frank Murkowski

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Frank Murkowski

I ask my colleagues to recognize what we are doing. We are setting two standards here. We are setting a standard for our political activity and another standard for our charitable activity. Who are we trying to kid? The group that hobnobs at a charity event is not that the same group that is going to hobnob at a political event, the lobbyists and the PAC's. Let us not kid ourselves. A charity event is just that. The proceeds go for charity.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Frank Murkowski

A political event is a political event, but you have people wearing the same hats at both.

Frank Murkowski

I yield my friend from Utah 1 minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Utah is recognized.

Bob Bennett

Mr. President, I wish to say as the Senator from a State where one of these events has gone on, that prior to the time the Senators started coming to Utah for the ski event, the Primary Children's Hospital was unable to raise the sums that have been raised since then. There is no question but that crippled children have benefited tremendously by the Senators coming there.

Bob Bennett

Second, I have seen the television and I have attended the event, and I find no correlation of truth between the television view and what actually went on.

Bob Bennett

I think the time has come for the Senate to stand up and be serious about this. Charitable events are, indeed, charitable. And if we let our lives be run by the scandals that are run on television, we will all be forced to retire at some point or other.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator has expired.

Who yields time? The Senator from Alaska.

Frank Murkowski

Mr. President, if no other Senator wishes to speak -- I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Vermont.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska yields to the Senator from Vermont.

Jim Jeffords

I was one who also, Mr. President, attended the events in Utah. I have never been so moved as when I saw Jason this last time, who came to us limping and on crutches and thanked us for making his life to be a little bit brighter because of the efforts that went on at that event. I think we were all moved to tears. And to think that I no longer can go there because of the scandal sheet, and the TV portrayed something which never happened to me -- I never was lobbied once in all the time I was there, never once by any lobbyist -- and yet it was a beautiful event, a beautiful expression of kindness and thanks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Frank Murkowski

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan controls the remaining time, 4 minutes 48 seconds.

Carl Levin

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Maine.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

William Cohen

Mr. President, I think this debate has pointed out the difficulty we are all trying to come to grips with. We are looking for symmetry between what we can do as candidates and what we can do as Senators.

William Cohen

But there is no symmetry. The Senate has gone on record in favor of the Bumpers amendment to reduce the value of a gift that can be given down to zero. If you follow the logic and apply it to campaigns, then you eliminate all contributions to campaigns other than through public financing. We have yet to take that step, and there are very few who are willing to take that step.

William Cohen

Bumpers says no gift of any kind. Yet, contributors, lobbyists, PAC's, and CEO's can all contribute substantial amounts to our campaign funds. So we have a great disconnect. We are not going to resolve that issue here tonight by saying we should have one rule for campaigns, but another for gifts and charitable events. I agree with Senator Levin; this amendment would in fact amount to a reversal of what we did this morning, and I would argue we ought not to accept it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

The Senator from New Jersey, 2 minutes.

Frank R. Lautenberg

I thank the Chair.

Frank R. Lautenberg

I, too, attended for a few years the ski cup in Utah, had a very good time, and was convinced that the Primary Children's Hospital was a wonderful place. And the last time I went I brought a check from me, personally, to the hospital because I thought it was so good.

Frank R. Lautenberg

But when you do the accounting and you look at what is spent on travel and entertainment and lodging and ski lifts and ski instructors, and you count the net, I think that we could do just as well for the Primary Children's Hospital if we all said to the companies that sponsored it, give it direct and we will salute you out here in front of the Capitol. Give the money direct and forget about all of the other stuff, the entertainment. It was fun while it lasted, but its time has passed, Mr. President.

Frank Murkowski

Will the Senator from New Jersey yield for a question?

Frank R. Lautenberg

Frank Murkowski

On the Senator's time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has no time to yield.

Frank R. Lautenberg

I had 1 minute. Is my minute used?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator had 2 minutes. He has 1 minute remaining.

Frank R. Lautenberg

I had 1 minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining of the 2 minutes that were yielded the Senator by the Senator from Michigan.

Frank R. Lautenberg

Frank Murkowski

I would ask my good friend from New Jersey, since he obviously is an expert and has attended the Jake Garn ski event on many occasions, why it took him so long to find out it was not a worthwhile event?

Frank R. Lautenberg

I never said it was not a worthwhile event. I said that things have changed.

Frank R. Lautenberg

The Senator asked me for an answer. I am going to give it to him. Things change. People expect different things from us. We used to have free gyms, we used to have free doctors, we used to have free this and free that. Why did we vote to change them? Because the public expects more of their public servants than to be out on a ski trip or a golf trip or a tennis trip.

Frank R. Lautenberg

What they expect is that if we are going to do our business, it is going to be done primarily here. And when we go some place like that, I submit to you, pay for it and go and show how serious you are about the Primary Children's Hospital.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded has expired.

Who yields time?

Frank Murkowski

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Carl Levin

If I have any time, I yield it back.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan yields back the remaining time.

Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Wendell Ford

I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is necessarily absent.

Wendell Ford

I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent because of illness.

Alan Simpson

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood] are necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?

Bob Dole

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the bill reported by the Government Affairs Committee would prohibit contributions by registered lobbyists to an entity that is maintained or controlled by that Member. Is this correct?

Carl Levin

Bob Dole

As my colleagues know, I am currently chairman of the Dole Foundation, a tax-exempt non-profit organization established to expand employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. Assuming that I maintain or control the Dole Foundation, the committee-passed bill would prohibit registered lobbyists from offering monetary contributions or other items of value to the Dole Foundation. Is this correct?

Carl Levin

Yes, it is correct. The committee-passed bill prohibits contributions by registered lobbyists to foundations or charities maintained or controlled by a Member, officer, or employee of the Senate.

Carl Levin

This prohibition, however, does not apply to contributions to a foundation or charity by anyone other than a registered lobbyist. The prohibition applies only to contributions by registered lobbyists.

Carl Levin

Under S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act, a registered lobbyist is "an individual who is employed or retained by another for financial or other compensation to perform services that include lobbying contacts." The term "registered lobbyist" does not cover "an individual whose lobbying activities are incidental to, and are not a significant part of, the services provided by such individual to the client." In the committee report on S. 349, we interpret this level of activity to mean more than 10 percent of a person's working time. This definition is obviously not intended to cover the overwhelming majority of corporate chief executive officers, other corporate officers, or members of corporate boards. For example, a CEO who visits Washington, DC, four times a year to talk to Members and staff, or a person who serves on a board of directors who infrequently calls a Member on behalf of the company for whom he serves, or an officer or employee of a company who engages in lobbying activities in a manner incidental to his normal duties, would not be considered a lobbyist.

Bob Dole

In other words, if the committee-passed bill became law, it would still be permissible for me to request contributions on behalf of the Dole Foundation from most corporate executives, and it would also be permissible for these executives to make contributions to charitable foundations like the Dole Foundation.

Carl Levin

That is correct.

Bob Dole

I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his comments.

Chris Dodd

Mr. President, in recent years, many Americans have expressed dissatisfaction with Congress. It seems that every other day there is an opinion poll in which Members of Congress are ranked at the bottom of the list of trusted professions.

Chris Dodd

I am concerned about the way in which Americans will view this debate. It seems to me that we are almost promoting the perception that every Member of Congress is being corrupted by lobbyists. Certainly, that is not an accurate reflection of reality. We must restore the public's confidence in Congress, but we need to find careful solutions that do not create more problems than they solve.

Chris Dodd

During my years in the Senate, I have fought to reform the political system. In 1988, I introduced a bill to ban honoraria -- the speaking fees that Members of Congress were receiving from special interest groups. That measure was eventually enacted into law and now those fees go to charities. That measure was a step toward ensuring that Members of Congress are responsive only to those paying their salaries -- the taxpayers.

Chris Dodd

Senator Levin deserves commendation for his more recent efforts to craft gift reform legislation. However, I am concerned that his gift ban bill may actually create more uncertainty as Members of Congress try to determine what is permissible.

Chris Dodd

Some of my colleagues have already discussed the problems with the lack of clear definitions in the bill. If the bill is not modified, Members would have to determine who is a "friend," what constitutes a "widely-attended" event, and what types of activities are "substantially recreational." Consideration of these issues could be humorous, except that someone's reputation would be at stake. The ambiguity of such provisions could also create a large bureaucracy at the Ethics Committee, as additional staff spends hours attempting to apply these rules.

Chris Dodd

The Levin bill would also limit the time and energy that Members of Congress and their staff could devote to fund-raising for charities. Instead of suggesting that such activities are somehow inappropriate, we ought to In my view, Senators Johnston and McConnell have crafted a more practical alternative. Their amendment would change current law to limit the types of gifts Members and staff could accept. It would also require disclosure of any gifts over $75 and any privately funded trips. With better disclosure requirements in place, the public can judge for itself whether Members are being faithful to the electorate. Finally, the amendment contains a severe penalty -- expulsion -- for any violations.

Chris Dodd

In the long run, the best way to reform the political process is through campaign finance reform. The problem is not that a Member of Congress receives an occasional gift from a constituent, or takes a trip to a foreign country to help expand economic opportunities for American businesses. The problem is that candidates must spend too much time trying to raise the ridiculously large sums of money that it takes to run a campaign. Although practical limitations on the activities of professional lobbyists are important, we must also move comprehensive campaign finance reform through this Congress.

Alan Simpson

We earlier passed a managers amendment which banned the current practice that allowed registered lobbyists to write checks to charities designated by Senators who have delivered a speech for an honorarium. This prohibition, however, is limited only to lobbyists and registered foreign agents. Honoraria speeches can still be made under this bill. Appropriate charities can still be designated by the Senator making the speech. The major change in the law is that the payments must not be written or tendered by lobbyists or foreign agents. Of course, 100 percent of any honoraria must go to the charity. I wish to direct this inquiry to the author of the bill, Senator Levin. On February 13, 1992, Senator Kennedy and I received a ruling from the Senate Ethics Committee in regard to our participation in a series of broadcasts known as Face Off on the Mutual Broadcast System. As a result of our participation on Face Off, we are able to direct $25,000 per year to various charitable causes. We are, of course, prohibited from personally keeping one cent of that money. The checks to the selected charities are received from the broadcast group which produces "Face Off." The broadcast group is neither a foreign agent or a registered lobbyist. Would the bill, as amended, in the view of the Senator from Michigan, have any adverse effect on this arrangement?

Carl Levin

If the broadcast group is neither a registered lobbyist nor a foreign agent, it is my opinion that this bill would not in any way change, alter or amend the earlier Ethics Committee ruling on that subject.

Alan Simpson

Mr. President, in the year 1992 our Senate colleagues directed over $500,000 to go to charities as a result of speeches which they made. By current law, not one cent of those funds went into any Member's pockets. In 1991, the amount was over $762,000. These funds go to organizations such as the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, the American Cancer Society, universities, community colleges, environmental and Conservation causes, scholarship programs, veterans groups, and many other worthwhile charitable and educational institutions. I believe this kind of work which Senators do to benefit charities is most commendable. This bill would have banned that type of activity entirely. I was prepared to offer an amendment which would have continued current law regarding charitable honoraria. Since my amendment became known to my old friend, Senator Carl Levin, the author of the legislation, he and I and our respective staff members have engaged in fruitful negotiations. I think we have achieved a solution which will allow these types of worthwhile organizations to continue to receive proceeds from honoraria. However, since this bill is mostly about appearances, and the perceived influence of registered lobbyists, we have agreed to modifications of the current system. I commend Senator Levin and his staff for their work in helping to draft this resolution.

Alan Simpson

As I understand it, provisions in the managers' amendment would prohibit charitable contributions in lieu of honoraria if those contributions are made directly by a lobbyist or a registered foreign agency is that correct?

Carl Levin

That is correct.

Alan Simpson

However, I understand that nothing in the managers' amendment which includes the provisions I requested would prohibit a Member from entering into an agreement to make a speech, and then to direct that an honorarium for the speech go to appropriate charities so long as the person who writes the check to the charity is not a registered lobbyist or registered foreign agent. Is that correct?

Carl Levin

That is correct. It is not our intention to prohibit Senators from directing honoraria proceeds to worthy charities. However, we do not want the perception to be that lobbyists are seeking to influence a Senator by contributing to his or her favorite charity. The entire focus of this bill is to avoid that sort of perception. Accordingly, the prohibition extends only to lobbyists or foreign agents.

Alan Simpson

I very much appreciate the outstanding cooperation I have received from my fine friends, Senator Levin and Senator Cohen, in arriving at a satisfactory solution to this matter.

J. James Exon

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, we have had several discussions involving a large number of Senators in an effort to devise a procedure to complete action on this bill and to take up other matters. The Republican leader and I have reached agreement which has not been reduced to writing and, therefore, I am not prepared to formally present it as a unanimous consent request.

George J. Mitchell

But, in view of the hour, so as not to inconvenience Senators, what I will do now is describe the terms of the agreement and, if agreeable to Senators, then to state that there will be no further votes and Senators could leave and we will remain and put this into the formal language necessary for an agreement.

George J. Mitchell

The agreement contemplates the following actions, which involve the time between now and next Wednesday.

George J. Mitchell

With respect to the pending bill, there would be only five amendments remaining in order: The managers' package of amendments; an amendment by Senator Murkowski, which will require that reimbursement for political travel be treated in a form identical to reimbursement for travel to charitable events. And these amendments will be taken up, when we do take them up, as I subsequently describe in the order stated.

George J. Mitchell

Then an amendment by Senator D'Amato, regarding the use of racial justice statistics in the application of the death penalty. Then an amendment by Senator Exon, which would require that any Senator who voted for the reduction in pay earlier today be required to accept a lower rate of pay, even if the amendment offered earlier does not become law. Then an amendment by Senator Dole, requiring that any Member of the Senate who has previously voted against an increase in pay which became law and then accepted the increase be required to refund that amount.

George J. Mitchell

Those will be the only amendments in order to the pending bill and there will be no second-degree amendments or motions to recommit in order. Those will be the only amendments in order to the bill and they will have to be offered and debated tomorrow in order to be in order.

George J. Mitchell

Upon the completion of that debate, the Senate will take up tomorrow the environmental technology bill. Any amendments to be offered to that bill will have to be offered tomorrow to be in order.

George J. Mitchell

Following that, the Senate will then proceed to the Bosnia legislation for debate only.

George J. Mitchell

The votes that are required on either the pending bill or the environmental technology bill will not occur tomorrow but will be stacked to occur beginning next Wednesday afternoon.

George J. Mitchell

So that there will be no votes tomorrow but there will be debate and amendments offered on the pending bill limited to the 5 amendments I have just described, all first-degree, no second-degree amendments or motions to recommit in order. And the votes on the environmental technology bill as necessary will also be stacked to occur beginning on Wednesday afternoon.

George J. Mitchell

The Bosnia matter will be before the Senate. That will be for debate only and no votes will be stacked with respect to that as of tomorrow.

George J. Mitchell

On Monday, the Senate will proceed to consideration of the Safe Drinking Water Act for debate only, and the offering of amendments. If any amendments are offered and votes will be required, they will be stacked to occur on Wednesday afternoon. On Tuesday, the Senate will resume on the Bosnia resolution and it is expected that debate will take up all or much of that day.

George J. Mitchell

On Wednesday morning it would be my intention to proceed to the Budget Resolution Conference Report. Any votes that are required with respect to Bosnia will occur not earlier than Wednesday afternoon, if debate has been completed by that time. But this does not require the completion of that debate by that time. And the same is true with respect to the budget resolution.

George J. Mitchell

So there would be no votes until next Wednesday afternoon. In the meantime we would complete action on all amendments relating to the pending bill and final passage, of course, would occur also. The same is true with respect to the environmental technology bill. We will have begun debate on Bosnia, perhaps completed it; begun debate on the Safe Drinking Water Act; and also have begun, and hopefully completed, debate on the Budget Resolution Conference Report.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Joe Biden

Mr. President, I understand this has not been formally propounded yet, but I rise on behalf of half a dozen Senators who have spoken to me relative to the potential racial justice amendment. If it is put in, and if there is no ability to amend that or second degree that amendment, I would have to object to any unanimous consent agreement.

Joe Biden

I am delighted to vote on racial justice if that is what my friend from New York wishes to do. I have not seen it. I do not know what it is going to be and it is a very important matter. I am unwilling, though, in the blind -- and I do not think in 22 years I have ever objected to a unanimous consent agreement, but I would be unwilling to -- I would be forced to object unless I could reserve a place. I have no second degree necessarily. I do not know. But I would like to reserve a place for the possibility of a second-degree amendment on the amendment of the Senator from New York on racial justice. If he would not object to that I have no objection to proceeding on voting on that issue. But I would like to reserve that right.

Joe Biden

Again, I speak not only for myself, but a number of my colleagues have come to me to ask me to protect them in this regard if that is to occur.

George J. Mitchell

I inquire of the Senator from New York whether that is agreeable to him?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

Al D'Amato

I do not know how you could provide for a second-degree, in all due candor. It is a pretty straight issue. Really an up-or-down vote on it would be appropriate. If my colleague would like to provide -- and I might suggest to the leaders, it would seem to me we might want to save some additional time Wednesday, for example -- maybe a half-hour or 20 minutes to be debated on Wednesday as well or whatever time one might feel appropriate, I certainly would not object to that.

Al D'Amato

Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Joe Biden

I appreciate the comments of my friend from New York. I suggest there are several ways that have been discussed about amending the amendment of the Senator from New York. For example, there are those who have suggested that it be amended in such a way as to suggest the Racial Justice Act, as contained in the House crime bill, be modified to apply only to Federal -- only apply federally. There are those who suggested that there be instructions to vote to amend it for purposes of deleting additional provisions in the House bill. So there are a number of ways it can be amended.

Joe Biden

I have not made any such judgment to amend it. But I know, whether it is Senator Kennedy or Senator Moseley-Braun or a half a dozen other of my colleagues, since this, as they say, happens on my watch, I am not prepared to agree to a unanimous consent agreement that does not give me or anyone else the right to come with a second-degree amendment.

Joe Biden

It is not the time. I am willing to limit the debate. I cannot speak for everyone, but for me, I am willing to limit the debate on a second- degree amendment as well as the underlying amendment to a relatively short amount of time. I am not looking for hours. I would look for minutes -- 40 minutes or 60 minutes divided.

Joe Biden

But I am not willing to agree to a UC if that does not allow me to have the right to attempt to amend the amendment of the Senator from New York. This issue, as we all know -- we have debated it many times on the floor -- is incredibly contentious. But it is also incredibly important. The Senator from New York feels very strongly about it but the Senator from Delaware feels equally strongly the opposite way.

Joe Biden

So I do not want, in the spirit of getting us out tonight -- and I can think of no better reason to leave tonight than what happened today -- but I think everyone would be anxious to end this session and end the misery. But I, for one, am not prepared to agree to an UC that does not give me the opportunity, if I choose to, to amend in the second degree the racial justice amendment of the Senator from New York.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

Al D'Amato

If I might suggest a possible way to deal with this? I just make this in the spirit of a suggestion to accommodate all.

Al D'Amato

Would the Senator from Delaware's opportunity to put forth his views on this be protected if he were to reserve a place to offer an amendment after my amendment, so we could each have a vote, up or down? We could have a vote on this and then if he chooses to go forward with another amendment dealing with this area, then so be it. And he would have the same right, subject to no second-degree amendment, so the Senate could vote. It might vote inconsistently on one or the other but the Members would then have a right to vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Joe Biden

That would satisfy an apparent sense of equity but it may put me at a disadvantage in terms of being able to defeat the Senator's amendment, and on this matter I feel very, very strongly about this racial justice provision and I do not wish to yield any rights I have on the floor that could enhance the possibility of my being able to. I realize the Senator has had the votes in the past. I am not one to tilt at windmills. That is why I am willing to limit the time.

Joe Biden

I realize the last time we had a vote on this the Senator from New York, his position, won roughly 70 to 30. But I would like to have the opportunity to use the rules of the Senate in terms of amendment to be able to make it more difficult for the Senator to win.

Joe Biden

As the Senator knows, we have always had a great relationship. I have never had anything but respect for him. I will do everything in my power at this moment under the rules to make it difficult for the Senator to win, or at least to decrease his margin. So I will not agree to a UC unless I have the opportunity, if we choose, to second degree the amendment.

Joe Biden

I apologize to the majority leader. I know how hard he and the Republican leader worked on this. As I said, I do not think in 22 years I have ever done this but this is too important to me.

Al D'Amato

I respect my colleague's decision.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

George J. Mitchell

The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Mathews]. The clerk will call the roll.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I am going to renew the request, or make the request in the form that I described earlier with the following modifications, and they all relate to the pending bill and the amendments to be offered to the pending bill.

George J. Mitchell

First, the order of the amendments will be changed so they will be in the following order tomorrow morning: The first amendment by Senator Exon, the subject matter as I have previously described; the second by Senator Dole, again as previously described; the third amendment by Senator D'Amato, the subject matter as previously described; and the fourth amendment by Senator Murkowski, the subject matter as previously described.

George J. Mitchell

In addition, there will be a managers' package of amendments to be offered at the discretion of the managers. The amendments by Senator Exon and Dole will be in the nature of sense of the Senate.

George J. Mitchell

The amendment by Senator D'Amato will be subject to a relevant second-degree amendment to be offered by Senator Biden, if he chooses to do so.

George J. Mitchell

In addition to the debate on that amendment tomorrow, there will be an additional 30 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on that matter on next Wednesday when the vote occurs.

George J. Mitchell

I believe I have stated all of the changes. But I invite the Republican leader to either confirm that or correct anything that I have stated that is not correct.

Bob Dole

That is correct. The remainder of the previous requests would be the same.

George J. Mitchell

That is correct.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Hank Brown

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted.

Hank Brown

Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do I hear further objection? Is there any further discussion on the unanimous consent?

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I have not yet formally presented the request. But hearing no objection from any Senator, I am taking this as an assent to the proposed schedule as I have described. And we are now going to present it formally for approval by the Senate. But having received that assent -- and I note no objection by any Senator to this proposal -- I, therefore, will take that assent, and the obtaining of the agreement, the formal approval of the agreement, will merely be to confirm that to which we have all now agreed upon.

George J. Mitchell

Accordingly, there will be no further votes this evening. And we are going to try to get the agreement in place before we leave this evening, and once the agreement is obtained, the next record vote will occur on next Wednesday afternoon.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

William Cohen

Mr. President, I want to make a note for the Record. Apparently, earlier this evening at least one Member of the Senate made an accusation directed toward the majority leader concerning his attempt to accommodate me and another Member.

William Cohen

I would like the Record to reflect that at no time did I seek any accession or window of time from the majority leader nor did he ever grant me any. As a matter of fact, I was meeting with a head of state, and it would have been enormously embarrassing to have left that head of state under the circumstances.

William Cohen

I made it very clear to the minority leader that I wished to have no accommodation made on my behalf, and I felt it was more important under the circumstances not to embarrass a head of state.

William Cohen

So any accusation directed toward the majority leader was completely wrong. But nonetheless, it was made, and should be clarified as the majority leader did absolutely nothing to accommodate me because I did not ask him to.

William Cohen

I have tried over the years not to tread upon his generosity. This was one case in which that was true.

William Cohen

With respect to why we are deferring any voting until next Wednesday, I think it is clear. There are a number of Members who have travel plans that we would like to accommodate. They are going on a very important mission, and we would like to accommodate their schedule.

William Cohen

There are also intervening elections, and for that reason, there is no objection to postponing any voting on this measure until next Wednesday. But I do think it reflects the attitude on the part of some who would unknowingly or carelessly make accusations which are completely untrue.

William Cohen

I wanted to clarify the record. My friend from Maine, the majority leader, at no time tried to accommodate this Senator by virtue of our friendship and the fact that we have shared the same constituency.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Carl Levin

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Carl Levin

Mr. President, I send to the desk a managers' amendment and ask that it be considered at this time.

Carl Levin

Mr. President, I send a managers' amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

Carl Levin

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Carl Levin

Mr. President, this amendment contains a number of technical clarifying changes on behalf of the managers, as well as several amendments that have been worked out with Members from both sides of the aisle.

Carl Levin

In particular, it would clarify that:

Carl Levin

Gifts based on outside activities of a Member's spouse may be accepted to the same extent as gifts based on outside activities of the Member himself or herself; Commemorative items and mementos of modest value may be accepted from anybody other than a lobbyist; A gift may not be accepted on the basis of the personal friendship exception if the friend seeks reimbursement or compensation for the gift from a client or firm; The bill would not limit contributions to legal defense funds by anyone other than a lobbyist or a foreign agent; Free attendance at a widely attended event may be accepted from the sponsor of the event, but not from an outside party that may have purchased tickets to the event; and When it is not practical to return a gift because it is perishable, the gift may be given to charity or shared within the recipient's office.

Carl Levin

In addition, the amendment would make it unlawful for a lobbyist to provide a gift to a Member of Congress in knowing violation of the new rules; provide for Ethics Committee waivers of the rules in unusual cases and require advance authorization for gifts to Members in excess of $250 on the basis of personal friendship; and clarify that this bill is an exercise of congressional rulemaking authority. It would also authorize the Rules Committee to accept certain gifts on behalf of the Senate and revise the provision on charitable contributions in lieu of honoraria, so that it would apply only to lobbyists and foreign agents.

Carl Levin

I believe that these changes are all consistent with the underlying purpose of the bill and the committee's intent in adopting the substitute.

Carl Levin

Mr. President, I think this is acceptable to both sides.

William Cohen

The minority accepts the managers' amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Carl Levin

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Wendell Ford

I move to lay that motion on the table.

Wendell Ford

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.