March 21, 1977
Page 8355
OFFICIAL CONDUCT AMENDMENTS OF 1977
The Senate continued with the consideration of the resolution (S. Res. 110) to establish a code of official conduct for the Members, officers, and employees of the U.S. Senate; and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time not be taken from the time on the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield me 3 minutes?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes, I yield the Senator 3 minutes.
AMENDMENT NO. 92
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, we will shortly, I think, propose an agreement to vote on the issues we have been debating. Before we do so, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD amendment No. 92, and immediately following it an explanation of the effect of that amendment which I submit for that purpose.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AMENDMENT No. 92
On page 24, beginning with line 13, strike out all through line 24 on. page 26.
Renumber proposed rules XLV through L (and cross references thereto) as XLIV through XLIX, respectively.
The second amendment would strike the Committee's recommended limitations and would stress current legal limits and disclosure, the amendment:
1) strikes out the entire proposed Rule 44 and would thus remove the 15% of salary limitation on outside "earned" income as defined by the Committee, thereby treating all permissible outside income in the same manner;
2) preserves the public disclosure requirements contained in Rule 42 of the Committee's proposal;
3) leaves standing the proposed conflict of interest provision contained in Rule 45 of the Committee's proposal including the prohibition against providing professional services for compensation;
4) leaves standing those sections now contained in the Federal Election Campaign Act limiting honoraria income which Congressmen may receive to an annual total of $25,000 and a maximum of $2,000 per speech.
Mr. MUSKIE. The time agreement which we will be proposing, and to which I agree, will provide for a vote first on the pending amendment, which we have been debating for 2 days, and a second vote on the amendment which I have just inserted in the RECORD with an explanation, which will indicate to Senators who read the RECORD what the second amendment would accomplish if approved.
With that, I yield to the distinguished majority leader to propound the time agreement.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE).
I ask Senator MUSKIE this question: Did I correctly understand amendment No. 92 as being the amendment which we really have been talking about, for the most part, during the last 2 days, to wit, the amendment that would remove the 15 percent limitation, thus leaving the present law obtaining? For example, that there would still be a limitation of $25,000 on outside earned income, which includes honoraria, with a maximum per honorarium of $2,000?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct, and of course in addition the disclosure requirements of the present law would apply to honoraria of any kind, so that if the second amendment is approved, the effect would apply to honorarium income the disclosure requirements, plus the higher limit which exists in present law of $25,000. As a matter of fact, we could not affect present law, I do not believe, by this resolution.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. So the effect of the amendment is to eliminate the restrictions on honorarium income in the pending resolution, leaving in effect the restrictions that exist in the present law.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. All right. So my understanding is correct, then, is it not, may I ask the able Senator from Maine, that amendment No. 92 is not a substitute amendment for the amendment that we have been discussing, even though that amendment has not been pending? We have all been referring to the second amendment as the amendment that eliminates the 15 percent limit on outside earned income, and this is that amendment; is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. Amendment No. 92 was introduced last week, it was printed last week, and it is the only amendment that was introduced last week, and the one we have been debating.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Senator.