CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

March 21, 1968

Page 7266

AMENDMENT No. 638

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 638, and ask that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] proposes an amendment, identified as No. 638, as follows:

On page 5, line 13, insert the following sentence immediately after the period: "This prohibition does not apply to any assistant to a Senator who has been designated by that Senator to perform any of the functions described in the first sentence of this paragraph if such designation has been made in writing and filed with the Secretary of the Senate."

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I decided to offer this amendment when we were having a discussion the other day about the right to have people have information. The statement was made that if a staff member was handling a Senator's contributions, he could be taken off the payroll forthwith.

That shocked me a little bit. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON] was also somewhat surprised, I believe.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may we have Senators asked to remain quiet?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will remain quiet. Attaches will remain quiet. Persons in the galleries are advised that they are here as guests of the Senate. The Senate will be in order.

The Senator from New Mexico may proceed.

Mr. ANDERSON. As I have stated, it was suggested that a man could be summarily taken off the payroll. I am not worried about that from the standpoint of my situation. My administrative assistant has been on the payroll 20 years, and has considerable seniority. But to provide that such employees be taken off the payroll completely during the campaign, I think, would be a very bad move. We have asked several Senators and staff members for their judgment, and they concur in the belief that it would be very unwise. If a man is deserving, he should remain on the payroll.

In many cases, no one is better qualified, as has been suggested, to know, under the rules and regulations, whether offers of assistance are valid and bona fide, and should be accepted.

For example, during one of my election campaigns, one day, I was told by a member of my staff that a man wanted to give me $5,000.

I said:

Who in the world could that be? I don't know who he would be.

It turned out to be Billie Sol Estes. Of course, I did not know him, and that was the end of it. I did not accept the contribution he offered.

Our administrative assistants know who these people are, whether they are lobbyists or not, and whether one could accept their gifts appropriately or not. I think there should be one person in a Senator's office at all times who can be entrusted with that responsibility.

I do not wish to argue the point. I simply believe that such an administrative assistant should be permitted to remain on the payroll. It is purely a question of somebody in the office knowing the correct thing to do. I am sure that Senators who have administrative assistants would wish to protect them; and they can protect them in this way. If the interests of the administrative assistants are not protected, and they should be even temporarily removed from the Senate payroll, several things expire, including their life insurance benefits, and their health benefits.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, has there been an agreement as to time on this amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no time agreement.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I think this is a matter of interest to every Senator, and involves a far-reaching question. I certainly would like to have the attention of all Senators who are present.

I believe it is a matter about which every Senator ought to be fully informed.

There is another amendment on the same subject matter, offered by the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that I may clarify that?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. MUNDT. I have had numerous discussions with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and members of his staff. We both seek to do the same thing. I think his language does it more clearly and neatly than mine; so I shall not offer my amendment in the event his is agreed to.

Mr. ANDERSON. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. STENNIS. That was the information I wanted to elicit.

The Senator from Maine has also mentioned this subject matter. I am not suggesting that we can accept this amendment, but let us find out where we are and see just what is involved. Is the Senator from Maine familiar with the amendment?

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I am; and may I say to the Senator from Mississippi that I have discussed this problem with the distinguished Senator from California [Mr. MURPHY], who is interested in the problem as chairman of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, as I am interested in it in my capacity as chairman on our side. Senator ANDERSON has been interested in the problem, and Senator MUNDT.

On the staff level, I think all four of us have reached agreement that the Anderson amendment is a reasonable approach to the problem, and we would like to discuss the issue around that amendment.

Mr. STENNIS. I think that is a contribution to the debate, and I thank the Senator from Maine.

Also, Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS] has an amendment on this subject matter. He is detained from the Chamber at the moment, but I have here a memorandum from the Senator from Nebraska, saying that he would not insist on offering his amendment, because its subject matter is covered by others dealing with the same problem.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. ANDERSON. My junior colleague [Mr. MONTOYA] is now present in the Chamber. I am sure that any person in our State could ask us, if there were any questions at all as to the propriety of any person in our State donating money, Senator MONTOYA or I would know, since ours is a relatively small State; but I do not agree in principle with a person who has been an employee of the Senate for, say, 20 years, facing the prospect of suddenly being cut off.

Mr. STENNIS. Yes, Mr. President, I know this is a far-reaching amendment, and its adoption would be a major exception to the recommendations of the committee on a major point.

I propose now to state the background of that part of our resolution that touches upon this subject, and state the reasons why it was written as it was, and what we had in mind.

I do not like to call names, but this rule XLIII, beginning at the top of page 5, was prompted in the beginning by, and the subject matter of it goes back to, the Baker case, which has been before this body a long time, as Senators know.

We started off, as I say, with the idea of limiting political fund activity by officers and employees of the Senate. Of course, the gentleman I have named, as all of us recall, was an officer of the Senate. This rule would take all officers of the Senate out of the area of political activity so far as money was concerned. In that sense it is a money amendment. It deals with their activities in connection with the matter, and the prohibition is strong. The manner in which it is written covers the field fully so far as campaign expenses are concerned.

As used here, campaign means campaign for reelection and the question of when it starts varies with the State law primarily for nominations, and that varies from a few weeks to 2 or 3 months. However, the State law is what controls.

In some places whenever a person announces, his campaign is supposed to start in that State legally and it is subject to that State's Corrupt Practices Act.

All we can do is call it a campaign, and the State law will settle it, and the Federal law will help to settle it, although it applies only under general elections. That prohibition is absolute.

I come now into another category. I have seen members of the staff and of Senate committees out campaigning and soliciting funds many times. And all of us have.

We therefore put an absolute prohibition on that, and the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico does not touch those first two parts.

In an effort during the campaign to take the money raising away from the Senate committees and from the federally paid employees of the Senate and from the Senate, we decided to let the ban apply to all members of Senators' staffs for that limited period only. We did not require anything about anybody going off the payroll. That suggestion came from someone else. We did not touch that.

We said that if an employee is paid by the Federal Government during the course of this campaign, he will not be permitted to solicit, receive, be the custodian of, or distribute any funds in connection with the campaign for the nomination or the election. So, that reached into the point of loosening it up enough to make someone eligible to receive those funds for transmittal only. And that is why we put this little exception in here.

This prohibition does not apply to an assistant to a Senator if the assistant with the approval of the Senator receives the funds solely to transmit them either to the candidate or to the treasurer of a political committee. In other words, he can pass them on to the Senator or directly to the political committee, and when it goes to the political committee, it is under the Corrupt Practices Act. That is protected by law there. Of course, we were not suggesting any skulduggery on the part of anyone, but our purpose after weighing all of this was to prohibit it at those levels for campaign purposes only.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] just left the Chamber. I think he must have at least 35 or 40 members on his staff. The law provides what he shall do. The Senator from New York probably has somebody on his staff to check carefully on these matters so that he knows what is to be done. The administrative assistant generally knows.

I am merely trying to say that in my own campaign I would like to have my administrative assistant see that we are complying with the law. We have had various suggestions about this.

I can recall when the able Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], the able Senator from Montana [Mr. METCALF], and I and one or two others went down to talk about the case that occurred in the Senate about 5 years ago involving a Senate employee.

I said that we had better punish him severely because he was doing wrong. I think that we should watch who the people are who are collecting funds and this is the way to do it.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator. We realize that this is a severe rule that has drastic application for the time being and that it applies during the campaign. However, that is the only way for the Senate to have absolute control of that situation.

I am not saying that someone other than the candidate could not do a better job in the State or that the candidate could do a better job than the administrative assistant. Perhaps the candidate would not do quite as good a job, the way I see it.

As a Member of the Senate, it is my judgment that it would be a mighty good move for a Senator who is a candidate to let that duty and responsibility fall upon other than his staff members and let someone else take care of campaign funds and not use people paid for by the Federal Government for such purposes.

I may be limited in my ideas about those things, but that is the way I see it. And I think the other members of the committee have seen it that way.

I know that in some cases perhaps an administrative assistant will do a better job because of his familiarity with the situation. He knows the people and the situation very well. There is nothing wrong with his doing that as far as he or the Senator is concerned. However, the administrative assistant is a Federal employee and is acting in that capacity while he is on the Federal payroll.

We believe that it is better to get such duties away from these people in such circumstances.

I have been told that there are some hardship cases. I am not suggesting that anyone take the floor at this time. I know that among others the Senator from Maine and the Senator from South Dakota have talked to me. I think this is a matter that we should discuss. This is not a football, game or a skirmish or a case of someone trying to make a score.

We need counsel on this matter from everybody at this point, and I will listen . with interest to the debate.

It seems to me, if I may say so to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, that if this provision is to be the law, it ought to be limited to every employee, and not just staff members. It should include everybody.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I think the Anderson amendment should be agreed to. If we read carefully the language of the bill, this is what it says:

No officer or employee whose salary is paid by the Senate may receive, . . .

That is where the first comma comes in.

If no officer or employee whose salary is paid by the Senate may receive funds, what do I do about the office in Chicago? I have a staff there, and I have an office in Centralia, Ill., downstate.

If a person comes into the office and says, "I want to contribute a $10 bill to your boss' campaign," what do we do? He is not my assistant. He is a clerk. He has the status of a clerk under legislative appropriations. However, he cannot receive it because there is only a single exception here. That provides:

This prohibition does not apply to an assistant to a Senator if the assistant, with the express approval of the Senator, receives the funds solely to transmit them ...

He is not my assistant. But what would I think if a person of good will comes in and lays $10 or $20 on the desk and he says, "This is for your boss, and here's my name and address, and you can report it"?

But under the committee resolution, he cannot do it. Now look at the fix you are in.

It goes further and says he cannot solicit. None of them can. Well, a friend goes along the street and runs into one of my clerks. He says, "How's the boss getting along?"

"He's doing pretty well."

"Does he need any money for his campaign?"

"Have you ever seen the time when there's a substitute for money in a political campaign?"

"Well. I gather from that that maybe he could use a little. So here's a hundred for him."

Well, it may not be a solicitation, but it would make an awfully fine point if he were hauled before a judge. So he cannot do it.

He cannot be the custodian of any funds. How long do you have to have them in your hand to make you a custodian? Overnight? Well, people will come in and leave a little money for my campaign. I do not want to take it home, and I do not want it on my person; and if it is a check, I do not want to endorse it. And I leave it with my force. They have been with me almost from the day I started in the House of Representativesa third of a century ago -- and they are as honest as gold. I will put this much of my arm or more in the fire for any one of them any time.

But a little contribution comes in over Thursday night, and we are going to take a recess until Monday morning. Well, is he or she a custodian of those funds? Certainly is. And, of course, that makes this a legal violation.

And they cannot distribute any of the funds. I do not quarrel too much with the distribution, because they never do, anyway, unless I order them to.

It says "any funds." One dollar. Any funds. Cannot receive, cannot solicit, cannot be a custodian. They will be immobilized out there in that big city on the lake. I have to depend on them. They are my eyes and ears. In a State with nearly 11 million people, what do you do?

What do you do in Washington, and in any other office you have to maintain, particularly when you have a large staff? And you have to have a large staff to look after that many people.

So all these things cannot be done. You have your hands tied. I do not know what kind of instructions I would give them.

This prohibition does not apply to an assistant to a Senator if the assistant, with the express approval of the Senator, receives the funds solely to transmit. Three people out there in that office, and the man who runs the office is out. He may be gone for a couple of days. Who knows? Somebody comes in and gives to one of the young ladies a campaign contribution. He does not like to be riding up that elevator to the 17th floor of a new building in the Chicago Loop when he has an envelope in his pocket with a check and his name and he wants to lay it down.

"This is for the Senator."

Shall I tell her, "You can't take it," and tell her to tell him to come back? What kind of business is it? The real problem here is whether or not you hire people whom you can trust in the first instance. And if you cannot trust them, you ought to get rid of them. That is the easy answer to that sort of thing. And so here only one man could be designated. If that amendment had not been offered by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, I would have offered it, because I have it here in the pile. As a matter of practical weakness, we saw this.

Now, it is said, of course, that they receive their pay out of Federal funds. Sure, they do. And so do all the people on the executive payroll. Do you think they are quite so reticent about it when it comes to working for their party? Certainly not. And while these people are on the payroll, they are my people, and I like to have them help me. But do I say, "Now, look, all go home, like good bays and girls, until the campaign is over, win, lose, or draw"? Do I say, "The rules now say, according to the Senate, that for practical purposes I cannot be helped"?

If you are going to do this, then why not go a step further and not let a single campaign letter go out of your office? And I do not mean on campaign stationery, anyway. People write you and say, "Just heard you are going to be a candidate for reelection."

When you answer them, you are answering in a political vein. And if you say one kind word about yourself or happen to insert a little dodger from the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that makes you look as if you are worthy of the gift of the bust of Socrates, which I got the other night downtown, why, that is campaigning, and that puts a political stamp on it. And there your hands are tied. Are we coming to that? It would be an amazing business.

No, I think the American people appreciate that in this political spectrum there has to be a little flexibility, and there can be, without corrupting the American system.

It is a question of keeping fraud out of it, and good people will not be tainted by fraud, and that is where it starts. But do not handcuff a man who has served honorably and wants to present himself again to the electorate for their franchise, if they are willing. Do not tie his hands and prevent him from having the benefit and the use of the people who know him best, who have lived with him and have seen him in his hours of agony and triumph, and his hours of weakness and glory, and his hours when he showed feet of clay and showed a temper. They know him, and they know what makes him tick. And if they do not know, nobody knows.

For me, whatever I have done or said is an open book to my staff. I have perfect and implicit confidence in them. But this resolution would tie my hands, and it would tie the hands of others.

So the Anderson amendment should be adopted, even though these people are paid out of public funds, because those funds were made possible by our own vote, when we voted legislative appropriations. And if we did not want to do it, that is when we should. have started, not now.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President (Mr. BYRD of Virginia in the chair), as a member of the committee, I recognize the difficulty of handling this problem, but I wonder if Senator ANDERSON really means to do what his amendment proposes.

May I read it?

This prohibition does not apply to any -- I underline "any" -- assistant to a Senator who has been designated by that Senator to perform any of the functions described in the first sentence of this paragraph if such designation has been made in writing and filed with the Secretary of the Senate.

As a Senator, I have 12 or 13 persons on my staff. As I read the language, I can designate any of them, which means all of them. I can send the name of every member of my staff to the Secretary of the Senate, and then any one of them can perform any function with respect to fundraising. So the Senator from New Mexico might just as well have proposed to strike rule XLIII, because the language of his amendment opens the door so completely that any attempt to restrict or control the fundraising activities of members of a Senator's staff would be eliminated.

Now I had better back up, because the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico does not lift the prohibition on employees of the Senate or employees of Senate committees. So what I have said is not completely accurate; but it is accurate, I think, with respect to the members of a Senator's staff. I think I could qualify a stenographer on my staff as "any assistant," because the word "assistant" is not capitalized; it does not refer specifically to a particular person.

The effect of the amendment, if it were adopted, would be to say that there is no limitation on the use by a Senator of any member of his staff for any facet of fund raising.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I am glad to yield.

Mr. MUSKIE. I think I can speak for all Senators who participated in drafting the amendment.

The Senator from Utah has properly, I think, interpreted its legal effect, but the intent is to impose responsibility upon individual Senators to exercise restraint. There was some discussion about setting a limit of numbers, but such a limit would vary, obviously, as between a State like mine and a State like New York or Illinois or California.

It was our judgment that Senators are fully capable of exercising restraint and being responsible, and if they tend to be less restrained than we think they should be, the fact that they must designate the staff people and file their names with the Secretary of the Senate is going to inhibit any Senator from filing a list of his entire staff which is open to the press and the public view.

I think there will be the pressures of public disclosure, which is the principal use by the committee in respect to the Senator's personal finances. Perhaps the public disclosure would operate in an inhibiting way with respect to this problem as with respect to the Senator's personal finances. That is the theory behind the amendment.

I have no objection to the validity of this argument being debated, but it is not the intent of those who framed the amendment to open the door to unlimited registration of staff people to this purpose.

The PRESIDING OF'F'ICER. The Senator will suspend until we have order in the galleries.

The Senate will be in order.

Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator agree that he used the word in the legal sense; and that this is possible under the amendment? It might not be good public relations, but it is possible.

Mr. MUSKIE. I agree, but I wanted the Senator to understand our theory. The Senator explained the inhibiting principle with respect to disclosure of personal finances; we think the same principle can be applied in this manner.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me so that I may address a question to the Senator from Maine?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield.

Mr. STENNIS. When this instrument, which it is proposed would be filed with the Secretary of the Senate, is filed, is it going to be kept on file there for some great time, and is it going to be publicly disclosed? What would the Senator have in mind?

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I think it should be publicly disclosed and available to public view at any time and at the request of anybody.

Mr. STENNIS. To close this question out, it could well provide that it would be a public record.

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.

Mr. STENNIS. Would the Senator amend his amendment to that effect? It is a matter that might need clarification.

I thank the Senator for yielding to me.

Mr. BENNETT. I have made my point. In light of the Bobby Baker situation the committee has been struggling with this problem of how to put some restriction on the financial activity of employees of the Senate, the committees, and the staffs. Now we have an amendment which would wipe away all restrictions legally upon any employee or a Senator's staff simply by taking the list down to the Secretary of the Senate.

If this is what the Senate wishes to do, that is fine; but there would be removed any opportunity on the part of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct to make any criticism of any activity by any employee of a Senator because this proposal would give him a right to provide a blanket authorization to every member of his staff.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, actually there is no such safeguard in existence today as far as filing with the Secretary of the Senate a list of who is authorized to solicit and receive and be custodian. There is no such provision today, and if a person in my employ went around to solicit, the person he solicits could call up the Secretary of the Senate and say, "Is he authorized to do so?" There is no such safeguard at all today. That is the reason for requiring it to be filed with the Secretary of the Senate.

Mr. President, I make the additional point that I cannot imagine any Member of this body who would be so careless as to willy-nilly designate everybody under the sun to be the custodian and solicitor of campaign funds. After all, it is fraught with importance. There is an element of surety involved. I think the Senator from New York made that point the other day and he probably will make it again tomorrow before we finish.

Therefore, in this relationship, you have a responsibility for it. I cannot imagine anyone who would forsake that responsibility and handle it carelessly by appointing everybody on his staff.

All I have in mind, and I think all that the Senator from New Mexico has in mind, would be people high up in the office echelon in a Senator's employ conveniently located so that they can serve him. That would not mean anybody and everybody because if it did I would have to be designating a lot of people I would not think of designating.

Mr. BENNETT. I have made my point. I think the amendment is very carelessly drawn. The matter started out yesterday, I understand, trying to lift it so that the Senator could designate an administrative assistant. Now we have reached the point where he could designate anybody.

I yield the floor.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I rise to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, are all instruments filed in writing with the Secretary of the Senate available for public inspection or does the Secretary of the Senate have the right to decide which instruments will be revealed to the public and which instruments will be concealed from the public?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wishes to advise the Senator that that is not a proper parliamentary inquiry. The Chair does not make that interpretation.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, it always has been my assumption that the Secretary of the Senate did not wear two hats, one being the censor of Senate documents. I had no doubt in my mind that if you filed an instrument in writing with the Secretary of the Senate it was available to all Senators and to the public.

However, if there is doubt and if we cannot get a ruling by the Chair -- and I am sure that everybody interested in this amendment has that in mind -- let us put in the language:

And file with the Secretary of the Senate, who shall not continue the infamous practice of censoring documents and keeping them from the public

If that is what he has been doing. I do not say he has. In fact, I am confident he has not. Or perhaps we should put in more pleasant and parliamentary language. Therefore I suggest we change the amendment so as to provide:

Filed with the Secretary of the Senate and made available for public inspection.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in response to the question of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, the staff member is working on language to accomplish what the Senator suggested.

I think all Senators who are interested in the amendment would be agreeable to its adoption when completed.

Mr. MUNDT. I do not think we should leave dangling whether we have censorship in the office of the Secretary of the Senate. If we do, perhaps we should amend the rules of the Senate. I have assumed such reports were not alone for his personal inspection. Certainly if that is so, we can correct it.

Now, Mr. President, to go to the utterly unrealistic argument of my friend from Utah.

When he says that a Senator under the Anderson amendment can file a list of all his staff members with the Secretary of the Senate and make them all individual treasurers of his campaign activities, he underestimates a little bit the intelligence of the voters of the country. I know that he underestimates the intelligence of the voters of South Dakota. And I believe he does also of Utah. This being a public document, I cannot conceive of any Senator, of any party, in any election going before the people and saying, "The following 17 people from my office are available to solicit funds and receive campaign funds and make disbursements." It is one thing if we have to nursemaid ourselves, but let us not insult the intelligence of the voters. So, I do not think it is at all realistic to assume that this particular feature is going to result in the wholesale use of senatorial assistants as fund raisers or campaign fiscal officers. We have never had it up to the present time. I have never had more than a single member of my staff involved in the handling of campaign funds even without a law. I recognize that I come from a small State. I do not think they need very many however in large States like Illinois, New York, or California.

This shows however we should try to write laws for all our needs, not just for the small States.

One staff member has been enough for me; it might well require more in larger States.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield?

Mr. MUNDT. I yield.

Mr. STENNIS. Regarding the subject matter of the Senator's point, our best information is that the amendment would authorize about 1,700 additional people, making that many staff members eligible.

Mr. MUNDT. That means there would have to be 100 "simpletons" serving in the Senate, which we do not have.

Mr. STENNIS. I make that as a fairly accurate estimate of the number of people.

Mr. MUNDT. And I make my own fairly accurate characterization of the kind of Senator who would be stupid enough to put that many people on his payroll as financial secretaries.

Mr. ANDERSON. If we had 1,700 people qualified, we could take the entire list of employees in the Senate, and if anyone wants to amend the rules so that they would be available to collect funds, I believe that would be impossible. We tried to cut it down to one person. The suggestion has been made that we should not tell people how it should go in large States like New York, Illinois, and California, who have different problems than I do in my State of New Mexico, and probably in the State of South Dakota. One person can do what he wants to.

But when there are two or three in an office, and hundreds of volunteers, it is hard to make them responsible for the accounts. The Senator should be responsible for the accounts.

Mr. MUNDT. I cannot believe that we would be interested in putting on that number of people.

Going to the philosophy of the thing, I look with favor on much of what the committee has done.

I think they have been a bit unrealistic on some points, as I said yesterday, and will say so again, when they bring in the Cannon amendment, that suggests that we pass a law on what the proper ethics should be for a public official and make it applicable all over town, all over the country to all Federal personnel at the decision or policymaking level. That would make sense. That would be comprehensive. That would be an effective remedy. It would have the teeth of a crocodile because it would be Federal law instead of the pious expressions of a resolution.

I am disturbed when may friends on the committee making such unrealistic arguments that if we do pass the amendment, they will have 1,700, that the Finance Committee chairmen and some Senators will put on their list of campaign associates simply because it is legal to do so. It is legal now. I would like to have any Senator name a single office in the Senate which has its whole staff out working on the solicitation of campaign funds. It is perfectly legal to do so now -- but happily Senators are not devoid of all aspects of good judgment.

Mr. STENNIS. If the Senator will yield at that point, I was trying to give him information as to the number that would be eligible. There are approximately 1,700 staff members on Senators' staffs.

Mr. MUNDT. I am not disputing the number.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from New Mexico is concerned about that figure. That is excluding the members of subcommittees and committees. I raise that point, that it seems to me it is not necessary to get involved with that many people, fine as they may be.

Mr. MUNDT. I want to get now to the basic philosophy of this legislation because I am afraid the committee is getting itself into the position of having some pride of authorship in having written the final word on the subject, which I think is wrong for any committee to do on any subject before the Senate.

I applaud the Senator from Mississippi's saying, "let us discuss the question; we do not know what the problems are in all the offices, so let us work together."

The Bobby Baker thing keeps cropping up. That is the reason everyone favoring this particular rule gives for writing it. Unfortunately, the Bobby Baker thing could have occurred if this rule had been written into the law, because Bobby Baker's great derelictions were not, so far as I have been able to discover, that he was soliciting campaign funds for the election of his boss, his employer, or his employers -- I am not mentioning any names, or anyone for whom he worked - but, as I said, his crime was that Bobby Baker was around collecting money for himself. He accumulated that $2 million fortune for himself. This proposed rule would not have stopped him with or without the Anderson amendment.

There is not a single word, or a paragraph, that would stop him from doing what he did.

As I said yesterday, we must not give this country a false sense of security, telling the people we are doing something when we are not, as we do when we indicate that we are correcting the problems of the Federal Government and public ethics by passing a resolution dealing with Senators only. As long as this legislation stays on realistic grounds, dealing with problems of self-discipline among ourselves, I can support it. I hope to support this legislation on its final passage. But Senators should carefully read that paragraph -- I should like to be advised, and have the country advised, too, as to where there is anything in lines 4 to 13 -- that is the whole paragraph -- that would have stopped Bobby Baker from building the Carousel, accumulating his real estate property, or making the $2 million.

Still that is the problem. If this is a bill to stop new Bobby Bakers from cropping up, the committee missed its target. It labored and worked on that tough assignment and, instead of bringing forth a mountain, brought forth a mouse.

It does not deal with the Baker offenses in any way in the paragraph before us. Maybe we cannot deal with it. I think we should try our best to do so. But it is not fair to say that we are correcting the problem of Bobby Baker by insisting that Senators serve as their own fiscal officers in a campaign. I think there is something pretty bad about compelling that, because we could develop a low-grade public morality if we compel every one of us to accept money, write a receipt for the money, then write letters of appreciation for the money, and then write letters soliciting the money, involving us deeply in fiscal affairs.

I did that in my first three campaigns. I was not sophisticated enough to know that one is supposed to have a finance committee, that other people would solicit his funds and contribute to a campaign. I financed the first two myself, along with a few of my real close and intimate friends. I lost the first one and won the second. When I got down to Washington, I said to myself, "This is going to be a good assignment. "But I was surprised when I talked to the Internal Revenue Service man and told him I did not have much of an income tax to pay because of the costs involved in getting elected to Washington.

He said, "I am sorry, Congressman" -- I was then in the House -- "you cannot deduct the expenses of a campaign from your income tax."

I said, "You can't?" Was I surprised. "No," he said, "it cannot be done."

So I went to talk to some old friends and those who had been staying down here year after year, campaign after campaign, spending all this money and getting elected every time. They told me,

"No, we cannot make deductions from our income tax for campaign costs." Then they added, "But your finance committee takes care of those expenses."

I learned from that experience and began to set up, as all of us have to do, campaign chairmen and committees to raise funds. That did not work very well all the time because some of them would spend that money in ways which I thought were utterly unwise and sometimes counterproductive.

One of my early campaign committees -- dear friends of mine -- started to put a full-page ad in the paper saying that my opponent was a Communist. Well, he was not a Communist. I never believed that he was a Communist and I never said that he was a Communist. But, there they were, ready with an advertisement sponsored by Committee for the Reelection of KARL MUNDT or something like that, and with available funds for the advertisement raised by the finance committee.

I thought it would be better if we would exercise a little better control of the funds that were spent. I learned a little more. I began to pick out a member of my staff and said, "You will be the chairman of my finance committee." He would make the report. If solicitations were necessary, he would make them. We found it worked well. On a few occasions, he said, "KARL, we have a fellow who wants to give a couple of hundred dollars. I don't know him very well. He is not from our State. What do you think about it?" I said, "I believe that is the fellow who is trying to have a private bill passed for somebody. I am not sure. Let us see if it is the same one."

If it was, we did not take the money. We do not want to be obligated in any way. If I had someone outside my office as chairman of my campaign fund committee, he would not know.

We would have some fellow coming around saying, "Look. I supported you. Now I want this help for that support."

The cleanest money a candidate gets is when one opens up an envelope, and this is very rare, containing $100 to $500 in currency and nothing else. Nobody can put an anonymous finger on me or you for an anonymous contribution. We can say, "What money are you talking about? I did not get it. Perhaps it went astray in the mails."

A Senator can do a lot about controlling expenditures and contributions by making sure he is not getting receipts from the wrong sources, if he has a responsible member of his staff on that campaign fund committee or working with those who raise the money on his campaign. Unless he has such a responsible associate or assumes the task himself, he can virtually lose all control of the financial aspects of his campaign.

I am not a lawyer, so I may not know what one could do about a situation where somebody sets himself up as chairman of a campaign committee who is not a representative of the Senator. He sets himself up for business. He may do something improper. Perhaps he accepts money from a corporation because he is not familiar with the law, and about which you can do nothing unless it comes to your attention. Down here our staff people know the law and it would not happen.

Based on my experience, if one cannot select somebody from his office -- in my case, I designate Bob McCaughey, my administrative assistant, who handles the money and writes the checks and pays the bills -- then the Senator would have to run his own financial campaign, accept the money himself, and arrange the finances, because he does not want somebody else putting an ad in the paper calling someone names. I want it known that the official campaign committee is headed by a person who has some responsibility. I want it publicized and recognized as having his identity filed with the Secretary of the Senate for public inspection.

So I think, really thinking only in terms of our interest in clean politics and good ethics, the Anderson amendment is a much tighter regulation than the language unrealistically contrived by the committee, and which I am happy to see the committee members themselves are not defending with very much vigor or enthusiasm. I think it is far better not to bring any more outsiders into a campaign than necessary, and to keep whatever rules and regulations we write in such a framework that they will apply to people serving in the Senate who have a responsibility, whose names are known, who are covered by our regulations, and who have the probity we expect from responsible public servants.

I think the Anderson amendment is an improvement in the Senate resolution, and I shall support it.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I offer the following language as an amendment, consistent with the suggestion of the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from South Dakota. At the end of the Anderson amendment, I propose to add the following language:

The Secretary of the Senate shall make the designation available for public inspection.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maine offer that as a modification of the Anderson amendment?

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; I offer it as a modification.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico offer that as a modification?

Mr. ANDERSON. I do offer it as a modification.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, may the language be read?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the modification.

The legislative clerk read as follows

The Secretary of the Senate shall make the designation available for public inspection.

Mr. MUNDT. That is all right with me. It makes clear our desires.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I would like to emphasize again the reasons which led the committee to recommend this rule. We do not say that the solicitation or the custody or the distribution of campaign funds is per se a wrong; that in any case or in every case it is corrupt or wrongful.; but we had to draw on the experience the Senate has had in this field.

Reference has been made to the Baker case. It is a fact, of course, that Mr. Baker, according to testimony received by the Rules Committee, solicited, had custody of, and distributed campaign funds. Also, it was charged by some members of the Committee on Rules and Administration that he favored certain candidates in his distribution of funds.

I do not like to call attention to Members of the Senate, but in the matter concerning our colleague Senator DODD, there was evidence that some of his employees -- and I do not say that he directed them to do so -- had as one of their duties the collection of campaign funds.

As I have said, we do not imply that it would be corrupt for a Member to use an assistant to collect funds. But our resolution and report establishes money as a chief element of possible wrongdoing. The proposed rule seeks to avoid situations of temptation or undue pressure upon an employee. We do not impugn the character of employees; they are just as good as any of us; but, because they are under the direction of the Senate, they could be under pressure greater than would be directed to one of us. We thought that to remove this element of possible corruption or evasion of the Corrupt Practices Act would be helpful to employees, to the Senate, to the Members, and enhance the trust in which we believe the Senate is held.

Employees, after all, are not only employees of the Senate. They are paid as we are by the taxpayers. It can be asked if it is proper for an employee who is paid by the taxpayers to be employed as a campaign collector -- perhaps in a campaign against other taxpayers.

The resolution in its very nature imposes restrictions upon existing practices of the Senate. But the Senate gave us this job, and we thought that we had, at the least, to make a new start, and to correct some practices.

We had to think not only of the Senate itself but of the trust in which it is held by the people.

If the institutions of government are not trusted, even though there may be no actual basis that they should not be trusted so far as fact is concerned -- but if the appearance leads the people to doubt and mistrust the Senate, then the great element of confidence goes. It was for these reasons that we agreed to offer this rule, in the belief that it would not seriously affect a Member of the Senate and the actual transaction of his duties as a Senator, rather than as a campaigner, and that it would strengthen public trust in this institution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, on the floor of the Senate, the day before yesterday, I had a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct [Mr. STENNIS], and it was on the point under discussion. I would have been happier if the amendment had been drawn a little differently, but I did not have the opportunity to confer with those who were drawing it.

I think the amendment opens the door too wide. I think that the privilege of using one's staff should be restricted to a certain number. In most cases, I cannot picture any Senator wanting to use more than two or three members of his staff.

Mr. MUSKIE. I thought the Senator might be interested in knowing that an amendment will be offered, which seems to have the support of those who were responsible for the original amendment, which will limit this exception to assistants of Senators who are compensated at a rate in excess of $10,000 a year. That would, I think, drastically reduce the number of potential designations.

In my case, I do not think I have more than three who would qualify under that limitation. Other Senators, of course, who have different salary scales, might find they had a larger number. But I think that that kind of limitation would then bring it down to the range of problems represented by Senators from small States and large States, because the numbers we have been talking about are perhaps one in the case of a small State to as many as three; or four in a State like New York.

I thought the Senator would like to know that such an amendment will be offered.

Mr. COTTON. I thank the Senator for the information, and I think it will improve the resolution.

Despite the hard work and the good work that has been done by this committee, it seems to me that I never have seen a whole body of representatives of the people so frightened to death by the occurrence of one isolated case. I have been hearing about the Bobby Baker case for the last 3 days. It is my understanding that action has been taken in that case, and that probably justice will be done. But this idea of 100 U.S. Senators hiding in the bushes and taking to cover, disrupting themselves and each other, because of some one instance when an official of the Senate allegedly did not live up to his obligations and indulged in practices not to be approved, seems rather pitiful.

A Senator's staff, so to speak, is his own immediate family. I think in most cases -- I know in my case -- that one's administrative assistant, the head of his staff, is bound to be someone whom he has known, tried, and trusted for many years.

I cannot conceive of adopting a code of ethics that would restrict a Senator from using his most trusted and most closely associated assistant in his campaign in any way he chooses.

Senators' staffs are not subject to the Hatch Act. The laws that we have enacted except them, because everyone knows and recognizes that you cannot separate the official and the political duties of your staff. You cannot separate them on any day that you serve in the Senate. Someone writes you a letter and asks for an Agriculture Yearbook; and then, perhaps because he wants to be sure he gets the book, says, "You are a good Senator, and I want you to know I will be for you when you run again."

You dictate a letter to a member of your staff and say, "Under separate cover I am happy to send you a copy of the Agriculture Yearbook, and I am very grateful for your confidence and consideration, and to know that you are going to support me in the next campaign."

That letter is official, and that letter is political, and there is not an hour or a day that passes that a Senator does not have to use his staff for political purposes to one degree or another. That is why they were specifically exempted from the Hatch Act.

In my own case, I would not dare to authorize three or four members of my staff to deal with the finances of my campaign; but my administrative assistant knows, in my own State, who my friends are and whom I had better keep away from. He knows the ones it would not be wise or safe to accept contributions from.

In other words, to be unable to use such an aide, not only to receive but to solicit, is simply cutting off the right arm of a Senator. This never was even contemplated, when we passed the legislation on the subject, that such action should be taken.

Furthermore, if the laws of other States are like the laws of mine, a Senator is legally responsible when he accounts for every cent that is contributed to him and spent in his behalf, whether it was with or without his knowledge. No Senator who lives in a State with that kind of a statute will have any idea of putting the responsibility into the hands of any subordinate or member of his staff who has not been with him long years, and is not completely competent and trustworthy to receive or distribute money, because the Senator himself will be responsible before the law.

I think that this is a highly essential amendment. I think the resolution should be limited, and I am reassured to learn from the Senator from Maine that it will be limited. But I cannot believe -- at least it is hard for me to believe -- that we are so frightened because of the publicity attached to one case, and that we are so distrustful of the confidence that our own people have in us, we are going to tie our own hands, so that every time we open the door and walk into our offices, we will have to stop and think what is safe to say to one of our assistants, or what errand it is safe to commission a particular assistant to perform.

When you are in your State campaigning -- and every Senator knows what that means -- you are on the road day and night, traveling and speaking, and you have to have confidence in your close associates. You have to have somebody to watch the store.

Unless this exemption is made and completely made, we are needlessly and foolishly and ridiculously defeating our own just rights. And anyone who knows the workings of the Senate and of the political arena would laugh at us for doing it.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, the argument of the Senator from New Hampshire is not without merit. However, the committee and I know what the realities and practicalities are. The committee wanted to take fund raising and campaign contributions out of Senate offices. And we did it in this manner.

I do not think, with all due deference to the Senator, that a group of 100 men is terribly frightened over one case. I think that every Member of the Senate is terribly concerned over what the country thinks of the U.S. Senate over one case.

Whatever may be the merits or the logic of the pending amendment, or whatever the unsophisticated character of the people may be, I do not think that I would go to Topeka, Wichita, Olathe, or Garden City and go to the people walking down a street and say: "Is it all right for JIM PEARSON to have a member of his Senate staff go out and solicit contributions for campaign use?" In a politically unsophisticated way the great majority of the people would tell me, "No."

We are talking about what the people think and about the restoration and the maintenance of confidence of the American people in the Senate as an institution of government.

One other point, and there is some precedent, although I cannot cite the statute. I believe there is on the books today a requirement prohibiting the solicitation and receiving of campaign funds in Federal offices, in the Capitol.

It is very well to say that the staff is your business family, and I concur. They are the closest people to a Senator. They are in our offices and in our homes, too. Our offices are our business homes.

I think what we are doing here is an encumbrance, to be sure, on the easy and proper way to do many of the things we do in our political life. However, I think this is a very important part of this code of ethics. I think it ought to be maintained, and I am hopeful that the amendment will be supported by many Senators in whom I have such great confidence as U.S. Senators and gentlemen and as great Americans.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PEARSON. I yield.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, was the Senator present the day before yesterday when I had a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi?

Mr. PEARSON. I do not recall. I think I have been on the floor most of the time during the course of this debate.

Mr. COTTON. I will simply say in that connection that I expressed the hope that members of a Senator's staff should be excepted, at least a limited number of them. I also expressed the hope that the amendment would only apply to activities within the home State.

Mr. PEARSON. I recall that.

Mr. COTTON. I made that very specific. I thought that was important. The public that worries the distinguished Senator from Kansas would be quite reassured, I think, if they knew that the Senator could not send any paid member of his staff around Washington or somewhere else to approach lobbyists and pick up money, but that the Senator was free to use that staff member in his home State. There certainly can be nothing wrong about fund solicitation under those circumstances, where it is done under the eyes of a Senator's own people who can see precisely what is going on.

Mr. PEARSON. Does the amendment now provide that it shall apply only within the home State?

Mr. COTTON. No, and I regret that it does not.

Let me add that the State of Kansas, I am sure, is a much richer State than is the State of New Hampshire, and perhaps the Senator from Kansas would be interested only in large contributions.

My finance committee is headed by a banker. If anyone thinks that banker is going to trouble himself with running around and bothering with $5, $10, and $15 contributions, I point out that he is very unlikely to do that. The Senator knows who has to pick them up. And these contributions are important because the people want to give them and because after they have given them they have an investment in the campaign.

The person who does that is not the chairman of the Finance Committee, who is a lawyer or a banker or someone who is not familiar with or accustomed to that sort of thing. So, we use a staff member at times.

I am thoroughly aware of the Federal law that says that one cannot receive contributions in a Federal office building. And I try to observe it. However, there comes a time when one cannot run around himself and do this and someone who has carried out their responsibility of heading up a finance committee and securing large contributions through solicitation cannot do it.

However, someone has to do it, and the one who does is bound to be someone close to the Senator and on his staff. That is just as sure as night follows day.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. COTTON. I yield.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I heard the Senator refer to me, and I think I caught the substance of what he had to say concerning the use of a staff member in his home State. That was what the Senator emphasized.

Some Senators emphasize and feel the need to do this in their home States. Others want this matter released so that staff members can take part in this activity in Washington, and particularly with reference to the political committee on campaigns for the reelection of Members of the Senate.

I can see where that is a problem for the man that is up for reelection this year and is already engaged in a primary campaign perhaps, or is engaged in a full campaign if there is no primary, since this is March 21.

It occurs to me that for this year there are some Senators that might have a hardship because of the relative lateness of the hour.

I think that a Senator would be wise to cut this activity loose from his office and disassociate fund money for campaigns completely from his office here, and all other such activities. I think that is the wisest thing to do. However, if there is any undue hardship being worked on any Senator who is up for reelection this year, perhaps the whole matter could be adjusted by letting the effective date of this matter be after the campaign. And that word campaign would not come into being until another year, another campaign.

I am not speaking for anyone but myself. It does seem to me that changing the effective date would meet entirely any real hardship that might be imposed. And I agree that it is probable that the administrative assistant or someone on the desk could do as good or a better job, in some cases. However, we are talking about a policy of cutting loose from the old custom that has worked well in many cases, and I would say in most cases.

But times have changed, and the atmosphere is different, and we were strongly of the opinion that the time had come to cut loose from it. I wonder if the Senator would change his mind if we changed the date.

Mr. COTTON. It would not change my mind. The Senator from New Hampshire is not concerned about this because he is a candidate for re-election, and I wish to make that very clear.

Mr. STENNIS. I was not suggesting that.

Mr. COTTON. It is just as unjust, in my opinion, and just as unrealistic, for the man who is running 2 years from now or 4 years from now. If it is right, if it is wise, if it is just, it should apply to everyone and should apply this minute. If it is not, it should not be postponed to become a burden on someone else.

It is an utter impossibility for a Senator not to get his staff mixed up in a political campaign -- an utter impossibility. I have seen times in the past when my State committee, the Republican State Committee in my State, was not being as alert and as operative as many candidates thought it should. I have even seen times in the past when a candidate for Governor or for Senator or for the House of Representatives had to work independently because he felt the committee was not taking proper care of him. He had to rely on his own organization.

On the other hand, let me suggest to the Senator what happened to me, and I cannot believe it is unique. My State committee arranges a fundraising dinner for the State committee, not for any candidate. They contact a member of my staff, who takes care of my work in New Hampshire, and ask him to work on it, ask him to help telephone people, help organize it. If he says "No," what happens? Immediately, word goes out: "COTTON is just running for himself. He won't help the party. He won't help the other candidates on the ticket. He is just interested in his own campaign." If you fix it so that members of your staffs; who happen to be in the State, in your office, when Congress is out of session, cannot help your State committee -- Republican or Democrat -- in its activities, you are going to embarrass many Senators.

It is not going to embarrass me, because our fundraising dinner in New Hampshire is over. But it may embarrass someone 2 or 4 or 6 years from now.

I say that any attempt to go beyond the spirit of the Hatch Act and tie up your staff with respect to political activities will be attempting something that is utterly impossible to achieve.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ANDERSON. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time limitation of 20 minutes on the amendment, the time to be equally divided between the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, and that 2 minutes of that time be allotted to the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT] by somebody.

Mr. ANDERSON. I have a modification of my amendment.

Mr. MANSFIELD. It is at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McGOVERN in the chair). Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?

Mr. ANDERSON. What is the unanimous consent request?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Ten minutes to each side; and in the total of 20 minutes, 2 minutes must be allotted to the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT]

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

Mr. ANDERSON. I should like the clerk to read the modification.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modification will be stated.

The assistant legislative clerk read the modification, as follows:

On page 1, line 5, after the word "paragraph" insert the following: "and who is compensated at a rate in excess of $10,000 per year".

Mr. ANDERSON. I modify my amendment to that effect.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be modified as requested by the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. STENNIS. If the Senator will yield, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield one-half minute to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I suggest to the attaches on both sides of the aisle that they notify Senators immediately that there will be a vote not later than 5:25 p.m.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I particularly desire the attention of the Senator from New Hampshire, who has been interested in this matter.

I am persuaded by the Senator from Kansas, my next door neighbor, because I believe the feeling of my people would, on the whole, be the same as the feeling of his people.

I have never used my administrative assistant to solicit funds. The moneys that have been received for my campaigns have been from friends, and outside of my office, but they do have to talk with my office and find out who my friends are and who might be expected to contribute.

The aspect of the matter that concerns me and persuades me that some modification might be in order -- I am not sure that I am in favor of the language as it now reads -- is this: Suppose, in conducting my particular situation as I do, much as the Senator from Kansas does, a man comes to me and says, "Gordon, I'm as unhappy as the dickens with the way they're running the farm program in this country. Come September, you come to me, and I'll give you enough money to run an ad in every country newspaper in this State."

That is not an unusual offer, I believe. It is something that has happened to almost every Senator.

I get out 16 or 18 hours a day and try to secure votes. I say to my administrative assistant, "Did John Smith ever say anything about that? Did he ever come through with the money?'

He says, "No. I haven't heard from him yet"

I say, "Call him."

If my administrative assistant calls, he is then in violation of this provision, even though in my office my administrative assistant has never been responsible for raising funds in any respect.

My concern about this paragraph is that, inadvertently, without any intention of making the administrative assistant the man to raise funds or the chairman of our finance committee, or anything else, we may find that from time to time we will inadvertently get the people in our office in a bind, and they will be charged with solicitation of funds. This is what concerns me.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I shall be brief. This amendment would apply only to staff members of Senators. It would not disturb the other points I made earlier.

This is the committee's position: We believe that a basic principle is involved. This goes to the root of much of our trouble in connection with the matter of money. It is a problem for everyone.

But the problem has been found at the level of the Senate staff, at the level of the committee staff, and it is surprising how many go out and how long they go with reference to funds.

Considering the excess of it -- not blaming any individual and not blaming a Senator -- and at all those levels, we wanted to dissociate for the campaign period the raising of these funds by the staff members.

I believe we would find with respect to people back in our States who could do an acceptable job -- particularly when friends were told the Senate has now changed the rule -- that we would be forced to come to them with more dependence than ever that they take care of this money.

We know this is a matter in which Senators are capable of making judgment and we are willing to submit the case entirely within the limits and principles I have made.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate is the product, first of all, of four Senators who were concerned about this problem prior to the debate today. Those four Senators are the Senator from California [Mr. MURPHY], in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, and I, as chairman of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

I wish to make clear that this amendment would liberalize the committee resolution in these respects. It would permit Senators to designate assistants who earn more than $10,000 a year for the purpose of performing the functions which would otherwise be prohibited by the committee resolution. The control upon the use of this privilege is, first of all, the limitation as to salary; but, second, the requirement that the Senator must designate such assistant, place his designation on file with the Secretary of the Senate, and that designation shall be open to public inspection.

The committee has recognized the principle of disclosure as an inhibiting and restraining force in its resolution in connection with the disclosure of Senators' finances. Therefore, the principle of disclosure is accepted and well recognized as a restraining force.

Interested Senators have incorporated that principle in the Anderson amendment. I think it is realistic. The question was raised as to why there was no limitation on the number of assistants to be designated. We toyed with this matter and found that the problem differs in different States.

One assistant might suffice in a small State, as the Senator from South Dakota indicated, whereas in a larger State such as California, two or three assistants might be necessary. The flexibility which the $10,000 limitation on salary provides was written into the resolution this afternoon.

I should say one thing about a point raised by the distinguished Senator from Kansas, and that is on the question of solicitation outside a Senator's own State. This is a problem that falls right into the lap of the campaign committee. It is our function as representatives of our respective parties in the Senate to assist incumbent Senators in their campaigns for reelection. This function involves fundraising, principally through the medium of fundraising dinners.

It is through these campaign fundraising dinners that we have to work with Senators, and we cannot expect to work with them personally because they are not always available personally on any basis that would make the operation viable. Therefore, the situation on our side is, and I believe it is also on the other side, that we look to the members of the Senator's staff to organize these affairs.

Is not the organization of a dinner a part of a solicitation function? None of these assistants go out directly to sell tickets, but they participate in the organization that raises the money.

I think that there is cast a shadow of prohibition by the committee resolution on the capacity of a Senator's staff assistants to help us in our campaign committee functions.

I think we must be concerned with that problem and we were in framing the amendment in its present form.

I wish to make one further statement to emphasize what has been said so well by the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from New Hampshire, and the Senator from South Dakota. I think we should realize it is impossible to separate the chief assistants of a Senator from his political functions. When I go back to my State with my administrative assistant, without desiring to, he is approached by people who are interested in the political functions of my office.

It may be fundraising, it may be contributions, or it may be any one of the multiple variation of activities in which a Senator is involved. Are we going to make politics, as such, that noble profession of a democracy, unethical? Are we going to so create doubt as to the legitimacy of a Senator's political functions as to disgrace our profession?

A Senator is a political animal. He has to get elected and he has to get the support of his constituents. This involves fundraising. Are we, by our action this afternoon, suggesting something is improper about a Senator raising campaign funds for his reelection?

If it is improper for the Senator's chief assistants, then it must be improper for the Senator himself.

I think this is the inevitable interpretation of the committee resolution on that point.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad to yield.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, it is quite common after a Governor has served a term or two that he likes the job. What happens? All persons who were not inhibited by the State civil service laws can be pressed into service to solicit, receive, make contributions, and start something in the form of a noble army charging up on white horses in his behalf.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think enough has been said on this subject.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, if the committee amendment remains in the bill as it was proposed it would bring about an impossible situation in connection with an administrative assistant paying a bill. For instance, some television stations will not accept a broadcast unless somebody is there to lay cash on the barrel-head before the program goes on the air. As the Senator knows, some of us have found ourselves short on money from time to time, so at the last minute someone has to go and solicit the money, find someone to pay for the program, and many times we cannot get the money there before the program goes on.

I think there is nothing improper about an assistant helping in a situation such as that.

SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote!

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for one-half minute?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I am about to propound a unanimous consent request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the vote on the pending amendment, there be a time limitation of 1 hour on each amendment, and 4 hours on the resolution, the time to be equally divided between the manager of the resolution, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], and the minority leader, or whomever he may designate.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. The unanimous consent request would not bar new amendments being offered?

Mr. MANSFIELD. No.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, in connection with my amendment No. 616, I would be willing to agree to a time limitation of 20 minutes, with 10 minutes to a side.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I forgot to mention, if this request is agreed to, the time of 4 hours is to be equally divided between the opponents and proponents of the resolution.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not know that I shall object, the Senator from Nevada and I have been conferring about an amendment. I think we can readily dispose of that amendment this afternoon by a voice vote.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I understand that matter will be brought up next.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.

The Senator from Colorado and members of the committee conferred. We want him to present his amendment, give the substance and we will join him.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?

Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object -- and I shall not object -- I only want to say that I have an amendment which will not take 1 hour, I hope. I would also hope that the committee would accept it. It deals with the question of the Chaplain.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I hope so, too. It is a good amendment. One hour does not mean that we have to use all of the hour.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Montana?

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is one amendment as to which the committee does not know whether it will be brought up or not. Until we know about that amendment, and know something about the attendance of Senators tomorrow, we cannot agree to any time limitation.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request. I thought this had been cleared with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. I discussed it with him. I offered it in good faith. I am, indeed, sorry. I withdraw my request.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if I may say one further word, and I expressly mentioned this point to the distinguished Senator from Montana, we must know something about what the attendance will be tomorrow before we can agree on any particular amendment. We are ready to agree on all the rest, but we cannot agree until we know something about the attendance for tomorrow.

Mr. ANDERSON. May I urge upon the Senator from Mississippi that we agree to vote on these things and limit the time, except for the amendment he is talking about.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment (No. 638) of the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON].

On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered; and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

The result was announced -- yeas 43, nays 37, as follows:

[Roll Call Vote listing omitted]

So Mr. ANDERSON'S modified amendment (No. 638) was agreed to.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.