March 21, 1977
Page 8346
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. EAGLETON. Yes; I yield to my friend from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the kind personal references to me, but I would not like the impression to get out to the public that the first vote is going to be on lifting the ceiling imposed by the House.
The first vote will be on the pending amendment, which is to apply the 15 percent limitation across the board.
I am willing to accept that. The cosponsors of my amendment are willing to accept it. It is a legitimate kind of discipline to get to the problems that concern the Senator, and this Senator.
I would not want it suggested to the public that my emphasis is on increasing that limit.
I am willing to live with 15 percent if all of my colleagues are willing to do the same.
Mr. EAGLETON. I thank my colleague from Maine for correcting me in that regard. He is correct and he has expressed himself precisely.
Indeed, the first vote on this ethic business has already taken place. I think the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. DURKIN) had a matter before the Senate last Friday. So, neither Senator MUSKIE nor I are right on what the first vote was.
But there is a vote forthcoming on applying the 15 percent limit on outside earned income.
But the overwhelming thrust of the Muskie-Nelson debate of Friday and today, and the overwhelming thrust of Senator MUSKIE's excellent speech on Friday, focused on this one question: Is there any evil in unlimited outside earned income, specifically from honoraria, lecture fees, chautauqua circuit, and the like? That was the gravamen of the debate between Senator MUSKIE and Senator NELSON, both Friday and today.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. EAGLETON. Yes; I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. The reason for that, I say to the Senator, is to drive home the point, the limitation imposed by the senate creates serious inequities.
The debate focused on that because the response to my amendment which is pending will be, although there has not been much discussion of it up until now, that it would impose serious inequities upon those whose outside income comes from sources, which will be described as unearned income, and the only way we can apply similar discipline across the board is to have a full understanding of the inequities that would be generated across the board. There has been so much emphasis in the press that somehow lecture fees are totally unacceptable from the public interest point of view, that it was important that the record contain some indication that there are inequities that flow from that discipline.
If we can all come to understand what this discipline means to each of us, whether our income is earned or unearned, then there might be a more realistic approach to the solution that we must ultimately accept.
I am willing to accept the 15 percent notwithstanding the inequities, provided everybody else is.
But if the majority of this Senate is free of the inequities related to earned income and thus feels disposed to vote for the limitations that apply to earned income, that in itself will be another inequity which I think the record ought to make clear.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SASSER). The Senator from Missouri's time has expired.
Mr. EAGLETON. I ask for an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I yield an additional 5 minutes from the bill.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, there is an evident disparity in treatment between earned and unearned income. As the Senator from Maine well knows and as has been ably pointed out by the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON) on several occasions, different Senators come to this body from varying financial backgrounds. Some poor. Some of moderate wealth. Some of enormous wealth.
There is no functional nor perhaps any constitutional method by which to cause an individual to divest himself of his worldly possessions or to divest himself of the income from those worldly possessions. A Senator is not obliged to take a pauper's oath.
We do not live, I say to the Senator from Maine, in a perfect world. We live in a very imperfect world. Thus, there cannot be absolute symmetry in the treatment of earned and unearned income.
In my opinion, the Congress, at the time it raised the pay of the Members of Congress from $22,500 to something like $42,500, in fact was saying that membership in Congress in the future would be a full time job.
The Senator from Maine pointed out in his remarks how one can build up a reputation that will warrant more attractive speaker fees. That goes for Senator MUSKIE as a Vice Presidential candidate who stayed the course in 1968. In deed, it was true for me as a Vice Presidential candidate who did not get through "spring training" in 1972.
By the way, he said that astronauts, some of whom are Members of the Senate, can enhance their worth insofar as the speaking circuit is concerned. It is interesting to note that the astronauts, when they were astronauts, were prohibited from outside earned income — speeches, articles, what have you. Being an astronaut was a fulltime job with NASA. They were prohibited from outside earned income.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. EAGLETON. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Senator forget what I believe I recall correctly — a very lucrative contract with Time-Life that was signed by the astronauts collectively? I do not recall how much accrued to them from that. It is a long time ago. I think that is a matter of record.
It may be that subsequently, before the program was ended, that kind of arrangement was modified. I am not up to date on that. But I well recall that the astronauts, under a contract or arrangement that was agreed to by their superiors in the program, nevertheless were allowed to earn substantial sums, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. Am I wrong?
Mr. EAGLETON. Perhaps I am in error. It is my recollection — and I will apologize if I am wrong — that astronauts were not permitted to receive honoraria for speaking fees while they were still astronauts. What they did after they retired as astronauts and went into private life was up to them.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I ask the Senator a specific question? I asked it several times rhetorically, and it is yet to be answered by any proponent of this resolution.
Mr. EAGLETON. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is there something inherently wrong, from a public interest standpoint, with a Senator who becomes prominent, for whatever reason, whether it be as a candidate for President or Vice President, or because he has a message that attracts widespread public attention, or because he is an effective public speaker — is there some public interest that mandates that he should not receive a fee for lecturing to an audience whose composition poses no public interest conflict, provided that the time he devotes to that does not come out of time he owes to the performance of his duties as a Senator? Is there some other public interest factor that escapes me?
If there is no conflict of interest, if it does not eat into his time, does the mere fact that he achieves prominence, sufficient prominence to attract this kind of attention while he was a Senator, deprive him of the right to perform that kind of public interest? Believe me, there
is that kind of public interest. What is the answer to that question? Nobody has answered that.
Not one of the abuses that the Senator has mentioned — and I kept a list of them — has anything to do with the situation I have just described.
The Senator mentioned South Korean payoffs, the trouble Congressmen have gotten into on the other side, the way in which we enacted the pay raise, illegal campaign contributions, junkets abroad, oil industry influence, campaign spending to purchase seats, the prerequisites of Congress. In order to deal with those abuses, do we have to cut off the kind of earned income that I have described?
Mr. EAGLETON. Let me respond to my colleague. His specific question is this: Is there anything inherently or indigenously wrong about speaker's fees? No, not inherently wrong; but there is something inherently risky. There is the considerable risk of the appearance of impropriety.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. EAGLETON. May I have 5 additional minutes? Of the last 5 minutes, I used 1, and the Senator from Maine used 4.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would yield time to the Senator if I had any.
Mr. NELSON. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. EAGLETON. I yield.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tony Campbell, of my staff, have the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield more time so that I might ask the Senator from South Carolina a question?
I should like to engage in a colloquy with Senator Muskie. May I have some of the time under the Senator's control in order to continue a discussion with him — based upon the unanimous consent agreement we had?
Mr. THURMOND. I have not said anything on this matter. I would like to say a few words following that. Would that be satisfactory to the Senator?
Mr. PACKWOOD. Yes.
Mr. EAGLETON. Senator MUSKIE's question is: Is there anything "inherently wrong" with honoraria for speeches?
Mr. MUSKIE. I put the question in terms of a specific one. I do not want an answer based upon the risk. I want an answer to a specific question.
Mr. EAGLETON. The Senator from Maine wants an answer he would like. I am going to have to give him an answer he will not like, and it is just too bad.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator does not have to give me the kind of answer he is proposing. I have read that in the report, and it makes no sense, and he evades my question.
Mr. EAGLETON. I do not evade the question.
I refuse to yield for 5 minutes to the Senator from Maine. After that, I will yield to him for as long as he wishes. But I am going to answer his question, one that will tinge his ears, and perhaps he will not like it, but I am going to give him an answer.
There is nothing inherently wrong, but there is something inherently risky. Appearances are sometimes as important as reality, and the Senator from Maine knows that.
Think back to the Haynsworth debate. What was said time and again on the floor of the Senate about Clement Haynsworth? He was honest, yes. He had good, lovely neighbors who liked him, yes. His fellow judges on the fifth circuit court of appeals liked him, yes. But what he had done gave "the appearance of being improper." He owned stock in the Brunswick Co., a few shares, and sat on an important Brunswick case. There was the "appearance of impropriety." He or his wife owned a company called Carolina Vendomatics, as I recall. They put vending machines in textile factories. An important textile case came up in his court. Everybody said Haynsworth was honest, but it was "the appearance of impropriety," to sit in judgment in this important case while his lucrative vending machines were in textile factories.
That is the evil or the potential evil or the risk that is involved in speaker's fees.
We recall that Justice Fortas was denied the Chief Justiceship of the United States and later left the Court. Part — by no means all, but part — of the Fortas problem related to honoraria. Part of it related to a relationship he had with a tax free, eleemosynary foundation.
We all know that Senators are approached about speaker's fees by various organizations: "Please come to city x to speak before our beloved members. We will give you a $2,000 or a $3,000 speaker fee, and we wish you well on your committee assignments."
Again, it is the appearance of impropriety which is involved.
I say, Mr. President, that at a time when we are held in such inordinately low esteem by the public, we can ill afford the risk of even a tinge of impropriety.
I repeat what I said about Senator MUSKIE. He is as able and as honorable a man as I have ever known. There is no question about that. The people of his State revere him for his character and for his impeccable public conduct.
But we are not all Muskies. Would that we were, would that all of us were like him. But there are some who would abuse the privilege of their Senate office and, thus, we have to draw some tough lines.
Quibble with it a few dollars up or down, but a line must be drawn which says, "no further." That line has been drawn by the House of Representatives. Are we to say that our greed is a rational basis for exceeding the House-established15 percent or $8,500 limit?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. EAGLETON. I think that is where the Muskie argument collapses. Yes, I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is interesting, as the Senator answered my question, with all respect, I still do not believe he answered it. Two of the three abuses to which the Senator refers out of the history of recent years have nothing to do with honoraria. They had to do with holdings of income producing assets. So obviously those kind of assets carry the risk of which the Senator speaks.
But this resolution does not apply the same strict discipline to them as it does to earned income, and that is why I put my question very specifically because I want to drive home the point. I am not going to try to do it with a question again, and I am not trying to abuse the Senator's time.
But my specific point is there is a public interest, there is a public role for a Senator to play in discussing the issues around the country. There are public platforms available to him which do not involve a conflict of interest, and I just do not see any public interest to be served in denying those platforms to Senators.
If you say that anything that has the appearance—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's additional 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. EAGLETON. I do not know who has the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I had been assured by the majority leader—
Mr. EAGLETON. Senator Nelson has the "white hat" time; I do not know who has the "black hat" time. Who has time for the "black hats?" [Laughter.]
Mr. NELSON. What is the request?
Mr. MUSKIE. I just wanted to finish a question in the form of a statement in response to something the Senator said, if we could have 5 minutes and, if so, I think we could wrap up that one — maybe not that much, 2 minutes.
Mr. NELSON. The Senator from South Carolina has been waiting but maybe I will yield 2 more minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I have one of them? All I want to say to my good friend from Missouri — and no one is fonder of him that I am—
Mr. NELSON. The Senator is using up his 1 minute.
Mr. EAGLETON. That is all right. I like that part of his minute.
Mr. MUSKIE. If you adopt that philosphy that we just use the meat ax to eliminate risk free situations, then you should not limit it to earned income; you should apply it across the board.
The second point I made is my amendment does not suggest confiscating assets or income. If the Senator will study it closely he will see that, and I will not try to explain it during this amount of time.
Mr. EAGLETON. The Ethics Committee has set forth a limit on outside earned income. It does not deny one forum to Senator MUSKIE or to Senator PACKWOOD or to Senator EAGLETON. We can speak at as many colleges as we want. I speak in Missouri at lots of colleges, and I am sure the Senator from Maine does the same thing. He speaks at Bowdoin, at Bates, and the University of Maine and, I presume he does as I do; that is, he does not charge a fee for a speech in his home State. Further, the dollar limit on outside earned income does not prevent him from speaking at as many forums as his lungs will permit. The limit on outside earned income merely says that beyond $8,500 you cannot charge a fee for such speeches.
So that the first amendment, freedom of speech, the right to inform, the right to carry the issues to the people, the right to follow in the footsteps of William Jennings Bryan at those great chatauquas of bygone eras, that right the Senator from Maine still has.
Mr. MUSKIE. Not on the same terms.
Mr. EAGLETON. What he will be denied will be fees in excess of $8,500 for exercising that right.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Missouri yield for a question?
Mr. EAGLETON. Whose time are we on?
Mr. PACKWOOD. On the time of the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. I yield 5 minutes and then we will have to go ahead.
Mr. PACKWOOD. The Senator has talked about appearances, and I come to the Lou Harris poll where people stated recently, on this one which was "Would you be bothered by Members of Congress speaking before colleges for a small fee, and speaking before big business for a big fee," and then the question was asked of the voter "Would your concerns about that situation be substantially satisfied or not if the voters in his district were made fully aware of his situation and could vote for or against him in the next election," and that comes out 57 percent are satisfied.
If it is appearances, if it is trying to make sure the public is satisfied, what is the matter with disclosure? That appears to satisfy them from the poll.
Mr. EAGLETON. There are some Senators, and the Senator from Oregon is one of those, who very sincerely believe that simple disclosure answers everything.
Mr. PACKWOOD. So does the public.
Mr. EAGLETON. Let us examine this proposition. Take all the limit off everything; disclosure is the answer. So if you want to have a nice little law practice in Puckeyhuddle, Mo., and put your name on the door of "Shyster, Shyster, and Senator," and then pretend that the Senator is a member of that firm only for matters that do not pertain to the Federal Government, then I take it that "full disclosure" would satisfy. Well, the Nelson committee said "No" to that. With or without disclosure, a Senator cannot practice law. I think the Nelson committee was absolutely right. Disclosure is not necessarily the answer to everything.
I believe that Senator PACKWOOD was present in the Chamber when I pointed out the low esteem in which we are held by the public. Out of 20 professions we ranked 19th in public esteem.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Not for the reason we speak.
Mr: EAGLETON. For a whole host of reasons, good, bad, and indifferent. The end result is the same.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Not one of which relates to speaking, and on the one issue that says if it discloses where they get the fees from where they are speaking they say that is fine.
Mr. EAGLETON. We are talking about a total picture — an image — a bad, negative image. We now are in the process of trying to rebuild our image from a very negative one to, someday, a positive one. If we in the Senate, after the House has already locked in this 15 percent provision, say that 15 percent is not good enough for us, we have got to have more, then the public will say, "Aha, nothing is good enough for the Members of the Senate. They have got to have more, more, and more."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? That is not the pending amendment. The pending amendment is if the 15 percent is good enough for us, it ought to—
Mr. EAGLETON. Oh
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, the Senator has a nice little way of skirting around the point of questions.
The point of this amendment is if the 15 percent is good enough to eliminate greed, which is what the Senator is talking about, on my part, and on the part of other Senators who depend on this source of income, why do you not get at the greed of those who benefit from unearned sources of income? What is wrong with the 15 percent as to them? The Senator has not mentioned that. The Senator disclosed in several answers to questions that the risk of conflict of interest related to earned incomes and he mentioned specific things that had nothing to do with earned income, that are related to other kinds of holdings. But the Senator has not addressed himself to the feature of this amendment at all.
Mr. EAGLETON. Well, I think about as much of this amendment, Mr. President, as the Senator from Maine does. He spent all Friday talking about everything but his own amendment. He talked about Chautauquas; he talked about William Jennings Bryan; he talked about Daniel Webster. He spent the whole afternoon talking about how these people informed the "folks out there," the great unwashed and uneducated, and all the Senator from Maine wanted to do was to carry on that noble tradition. That is what he talked about all day Friday. Now today, when he does not like something that is being said, he now wants to refocus the whole debate and recast it as he would like.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. EAGLETON. The issue he has raised time and again is whether there should be a limit on outside earned income.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the Senator knows full well he called it a fine speech and he did listen to it. He did listen to it.
Of course, I talked about the equities for Senators who go on the lecture circuit. I indicated then and indicated to the Senator earlier this afternoon that, notwithstanding what I regard as an unwise approach to the problem, I am willing to accept it but, in order to persuade those who do not depend on the lecture circuit, I had to indicate that there were inequities with the committee's approach and that I would balance the inequities by imposing a similar approach on unearned income. Otherwise, I could not make a case to Senators who have income producing assets. There are inequities for both of us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I spent the time, as the Senator described, as he is right. I spent a lot of time on it. But the first amendment I offered and the first amendment I wrote, which is the one that is now pending, would apply the 15 percent across the board.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield 50 seconds?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield time?
Mr. THURMOND. I yield 1 minute.
Mr. EAGLETON. I thank the Senator for yielding 1 minute.
With all due respect to our colleague from Maine, and we have had a good exchange here, he knows that the amendment now pending is a tactical ploy. It is merely a diverting strategy. He knows that it will not fly. He knows that from a constitutional point of view it raises very serious questions and that he is using it as a gimmick, as a strategy. What he is really after, what he has been talking about, and what he is really concerned about are limitations on earned income from honoraria. Of course, he can cast a smoke screen. He can allege how terrible it is not to treat earned and unearned income alike. But his basic gripe is not that. His basic gripe is on the outside earned income limit which he opposes and which I support.
I thank our colleague from South Carolina.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, let me say one word. I think this has been a very fruitful dialog and I would hope we could continue it. But the Senator from South Carolina did request time within which to speak.
Mr, MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I put a question? How long will the Senator from South Carolina be? I wish to respond to this last point made. I wish to know when I can expect to be recognized for that purpose.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the senator from Maine has been talking since Friday off and on and, I think other Senators wish to talk awhile.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am agreeable. I only wish to find out.
Mr. THURMOND. It seems to me we should divide the time among all Senators. I am not going to talk long, only about 20 minutes or maybe less.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no objection.
I simply want the Senator to tell me when I might be recognized. If it is an hour from now, that is fine; if it is not until tomorrow morning, that is fine.
Mr. THURMOND. I do not intend to speak over 15 or 20 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is fine. I thank the Senator.