March 22, 1977
Page 8598
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind references of the distinguished majority leader. I wish he would permit me to send them to booking agencies. I also would like, if I might have permission, to send the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON) to the booking agencies, but only if this amendment is agreed to. [Laughter.]
Otherwise, there is no point in selling what is not available.
I say to the distinguished majority leader these things:
First, he emphasized the point that $66,125 should be enough. However, 67 Senators, including the Senator from West Virginia, have just voted to the effect that $66,125 is not enough, except as to Senators with earned income.
I put a column in the RECORD this morning which reveals what some Senators had disclosed voluntarily outside incomes of $125,000, $112,000, $74,000, $65,000; all incomes that are not limited by this 15 percent, not limited at all. But the limit is to apply to us, because apparently in the Senator's judgment lecture fees are more conflict of interest prone than any other form of outside income.
If that is the basis of his judgment, then I challenge his facts. If it is not the basis of his judgment, then I challenge the limit. I can see no justification, none whatsoever, for a limit on anybody's income if there is no conflict of interest.
That is my simple proposition. It has taken all the orchestration I can command — and I doubt that it is as good as my good friend from Wisconsin suggests — to get to that point.
I do not believe the American people demand that we prohibit income, earned or unearned, which involves no conflict of interest and which does not interfere with a Senator's duty as a Senator. I believe that if it meets those two tests, the American people would not want to prohibit, would not insist on a code of ethics that contains that kind of limitation. I do not believe it, and there is not a poll I have read that suggests the contrary. On the contrary, the Harris poll, which has been involved so much in this debate, says clearly, with respect to outside earned and unearned income, where there may be a conflict, that they would be satisfied with disclosure; and this committee says that at the heart of the code of conduct is full and complete public financial disclosure.
If that is sufficient for the public, and if it is a principle that the committee embraces with respect to everything in this code except earned income, then it is a principle that is sufficient to safeguard the public against conflict of interest from earned income unless somebody can show, and nobody has shown in 3 days of debate, that lecture fees are so fraught with the danger of conflict of interest that they have to be prohibited altogether.
This is simply a stepping stone on the road to complete prohibition. Common Cause, which is the behind the scenes force on this code of ethics, has said so, that is their objective; so that is the objective.
When they get us, gentlemen, they will get the rest of you, they will get after your incomes, your outside incomes, whatever. I say full disclosure is adequate.
Now, on this point that when you voted for the pay raise you voted for a code of ethics, what does that mean?
Did you at that moment consciously vote for each and every provision in the code of ethics or did you reserve to yourself some measure of judgment as to what is reasonable, unreasonable, effective, ineffective? When you cast that vote did you rubberstamp anything the committee might produce? When you cast that vote did you rubberstamp whatever the majority had in mind as to what would be a satisfactory code of ethics?
Of course, you did not. This code goes into great specifics about a lot of things. The question was raised the other day as to whether or not the public was not expecting some specific and not just generalities like full disclosure.
Well, look on page 2 of the committee report. I ask unanimous consent that the summary contained on page 2 be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SUMMARY
Summarized briefly, these proposed Rules set forth in Title I would provide for:
1. Public financial disclosure by Senators or officers and employees of the Senate earning in excess of $25,000 per year. Reporting individuals would be required to list their earned income and the sources and categories of value of their income, other than earned income, and all other interests, assets, and holdings held for the purposes of investment or income production;
2. A prohibition on knowingly accepting a gift or gifts having an aggregate value of over $100 during a year from any individual or organization having a "direct interest in legislation", as defined in that proposed Rule;
3. A prohibition imposed on senators, officers, and employees of the Senate earning more than $35,000 from earning outside income in an amount exceeding 15 percent of their salaries;
4. A prohibition on members, officers, and employees earning over $35,000 from practicing their profession or rendering professional services;
5. A prohibition on the use of so-called "unofficial" office accounts;
6. A prohibition on the practices of so-called "lame duck travel" in connection with foreign travel;
7. A restriction on the use of the frank to materials printed or paper purchased with government funds;
8. A prohibition on keeping officers and employees of the Senate on the Senate payroll while they are engaged substantially in campaign activities; and
9. A prohibition against discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or state of physical handicap in employment practices in the Senate.
Title II sets forth certain amendments to S. Res. 338, agreed to in 1964, which established the procedure of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, now the Select Committee on Ethics. This procedure includes a provision designed to insure that every sworn complaint to the Select Committee will receive an initial review by the committee; that if the Committee determines the complaint to be lacking in merit, the complainant and the accused will be informed; if the Select Committee decides that the complaint warrants a full investigation, a report to the Senate would be required. Title II also provides that if two members of the Select Committee disagree with a decision by a majority of the Select Committee, those members can bring the matter to the attention of the full Senate by offering a resolution which, if adopted, would instruct the Select Committee to hold a full investigation.
Title III sets forth recommendations that certain studies be made by various Senate committees to follow up in certain areas which the Committee did not have time to deal with fully. For example, in the course of studying the uses of "unofficial office accounts" and the resulting problems, the Committee concluded that the uses of such accounts were closely tied to relatively narrow restrictions on permissible uses of official allowances. For that reason, the Committee is recommending that the Committees on Rules and Appropriations study the adequacy and permissible uses of official allowances and report their recommendations to the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. There are more specifics in this code, aside from this one on earned income, and you are going to find it uncomfortable living with, believe me, if you have not already read it and reached that judgment yourself. There are all manner of specifics in here, and I support the bulk of them, but they are not going to be easy to live with, and there is plenty of specific evidence to give your constituents back home that you are an honest man.
That, after all, is what we are all trying to prove with our vote this afternoon, are we not? It is suggested that those of us who are going to vote for the Muskie amendment are somehow soft on ethics — let me repeat, somehow soft on ethics. Well. I challenge that, and I have got a public record that supports my challenge. The people I know in this body who are on the lecture circuit have public records to support that challenge.
We do not need to rubberstamp any committee, and if the Senate rubberstamps this committee it will be the first time in my 19 years in the Senate when I have seen a committee rubberstamped on a controversial issue by every Senator.
What makes this committee so special that it should be rubberstamped? I wish I could command that kind of power, to say to every Senator, "unless you vote for my bill you are dishonest" or "you are unethical,' or "you are soft on ethics."
Is that the power we are having waved around this Chamber this afternoon unless we rubberstamp this?
I told you earlier today about the six Senators I called when I got to my office this morning, and five of them said, "ED, you are right, but I cannot vote for you."
Why could they not? One had made a commitment to the majority leader; two or three others had voted for the pay raise and were taking flak back home, and had to cast a vote that would offset that flak; and they were feeling the pressure of public dissatisfaction with congressional ethics.
So even though they believed I was right on the merits, and that those reasons were irrelevant on the merits, they were going to vote with the majority leader.
I have a very strong feeling that if this amendment is defeated, it will be defeated notwithstanding the fact that a majority of the Senate agrees with me on the merits.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator did not interrupt me, but may I interrupt him for a second?
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. In my calls to Senators and in my personal discussion with Senators I found several Senators who said to me they were already committed to the Senator from Maine, and so I left them alone when they said that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, I did not run into your tracks anywhere, BOB. [Laughter.] You are more adept at concealing it. But you have enormous influence here not only because of your position as majority leader but because you are a very persuasive man, too. But when your persuasion is added to the pressure of public dissatisfaction with congressional ethics generally what is created is sort of a lynch mob environment in which people will just vote anything in the name of ethics, whether or not it is wise, and I just do not think that is the way we ought to be writing this policy.
But, as the Senator from Wisconsin has suggested, I have talked more than my share, and I apologize if I have overburdened my colleagues with the thrust of my arguments. Obviously I feel deeply about it. I do not very often engage in this kind of extended debate. I have tried not to repeat myself, but because the Senator from Wisconsin repeats himself I have to in order to respond. [Laughter.]
But in any case I thank you all for listening and for giving us your attention for the last hour. We have had an audience and I cannot complain about that.