March 31, 1977
Page 9787
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.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to take a few moments to state my intentions with respect to the final vote on the pending resolution. I expect to vote against it for reasons I shall briefly outline.
I do not intend to spend an extended amount of time going over those reasons, because I suspect whatever I say tonight is simply a capstone on what I have said earlier in debate on this resolution.
First of all, Mr. President, may I emphasize I think it is well for the Senate and Congress to undertake to establish an ethical standard for the conduct of Members of Congress. I have no objection to that at all. I am sorry it is necessary, in terms of public perception of our conduct and behavior, to reestablish a spirit of trust and confidence between us and our constituents.
However, it does appear to be necessary, and I support the effort to do so.
Second, there are many provisions in this bill which I can support. I think in some respects we may find them to be overly burdensome and restrictive, but it is in the nature of the legislative process to support legislation notwithstanding such misgivings. I think full public financial disclosure is a must in this day and age. This pending resolution does not provide for full and complete financial disclosure in the literal meaning of those words but, nevertheless, it does adopt the principle of disclosure, and I applaud it for doing so.
I think it is appropriate to impose limits on gifts that Senators and staff members may receive. I think some limitation on the practicing of a profession or the rendering of professional services is appropriate. I think the proposed limitation on so-called unofficial office accounts is appropriate. I think the prohibition of so-called lame duck travel is appropriate. The proposed restrictions on the use of the frank, I think, are appropriate. So, on the whole, there are many provisions in this bill, Mr. President, I can support.
However, the floor manager, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON), the majority leader, members of the committee, and others who support the resolution have made it clear they consider the centerpiece of this resolution to be the limitation on outside earned income. I have stated my views on that provision at length; and I am not going to belabor it. But I do want to restate the elements of my disagreement with the supporters of this restriction at this time. My silence on previous occasions was used, in the course of the debate on this resolution, to suggest I had, in effect, acquiesced in previous limitations.
I did not acquiesce, and I certainly intend to make it clear I do not acquiesce now. So, because this is regarded as the centerpiece of this resolution, I find it necessary to make my decision on voting for or against it on that point. Therefore, I shall vote against the resolution, notwithstanding my support of the provisions which I have outlined above.
Why do I oppose the restriction on outside earned income in this resolution?
First, I think it is harsh and discriminatory.
Second, I think it is unnecessary, and in my judgment of doubtful constitutionality.
Third, it is based upon an assumption with respect to the role of a U.S. Senator to which I take strong exception.
The majority leader, for example, in his argument on my second amendment, had this to say:
Mr. President, reference has been made to the necessity of the lecture circuit to further the public dialog. That will not be hampered by the 15 percent limitation on outside earned income. A public dialog is now focused on the floor of the Senate. The days of the Chautauqua circuit are gone forever. The national news media now reports events simultaneously with their occurrence.
This is the finest and the best speech forum in the world.
Right up there sits an entire gallery of press media. The printed media, the television and radio media are at hand. We have our opportunities to get on the Sunday shows: Face the Nation, Issues and Answers, Meet the Press, and so on. We have every opportunity to get our views out to the public.
Mr. President, I just do not view speeches here in Washington, whether from this floor or in the studios of the national networks, as a substitute for getting out among our people at the grassroots. President Carter understands this, and through these first days and weeks of his administration has driven that point home with emphasis and with increasing acceptance on the part of our people.
I think it is a part of the role of a Senator to speak to the people where they are. I have always regarded it in that way. The majority leader says:
Well, all we are doing is restricting the income that you can earn from speaking around the country.
Putting that point aside for the moment, the argument has been that speaking around the country takes time away from our duties as Senators. So, implicitly, even if we were to receive no income from making speeches, it is the intent of this resolution to chill or inhibit or restrain the role of a Senator in speaking to the people of this country.
I just do not happen to agree with that. I have found it possible, in my own experience, to build public awareness of issues and problems by speaking around the country. I shall continue to do so. And I have not always done so for a fee. I have spoken to groups where I thought my message should be made for no fee or for a small fee, because I think that is a part of the role of a Senator.
I see nothing wrong, when a group offers a fee for doing that sort of thing, with supplementing my income by accepting it. But the income part of it is not what I am talking about.
Not so long ago, Mr. President, Lou Harris did a poll that is very revealing on this point about public knowledge of Government and those who serve within Government. The poll showed these things, among others:
While 63 percent of the people felt that the Federal Government affected their lives personally a great deal, only 40 percent felt that they were up to date on what was going on in the Federal Government in Washington. In other words, 60 percent of the people felt that they did not know what was going on at the level of Government that a majority felt had the most direct impact on their lives. And this notwithstanding the enormous role of television and radio as well as the print media in disseminating information around the country.
The public official who was the best known in the country, except for the President, was the Governor — 89 percent of the people could name their Governor. He was there at the grassroots. He traveled among them.
Only 59 percent could name one of their Senators. Forty-six percent could name their Congressmen, and only 39 percent could name their second Senator.
Another test Harris used was to find out how much people knew about the makeup of the Congress — that it was made up of two Houses. Only 62 percent of the people answered that the Congress was made up of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. An astonishing 20 percent answered that the Congress was made up of the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court.
Harris also surveyed State and local officials including Governors and mayors to determine the means they used to keep in touch with the people. More of them said they used speeches and appearances on a regular basis — 88 percent — than any other kind of activity to keep in touch with their constituents. This notwithstanding television and the availability of the print media.
Mr. President, I hope we never assume that our only role as Senators is to sit in this Chamber or in our committee rooms on a 12 month basis legislating and talking to our people only through the press gallery, the television studios, and the radio studios. I hope we never assume we know what the people are thinking about, what they are talking about, or what their views are on that basis. And yet that limitation on that role in this resolution adds another driving force to that tendency. It tends to nail us down to this place by frowning not only on the earning of incomes from that activity — which I still insist is an honorable profession — but frowning upon the taking of time from our work here to do that work.
I think being a U.S. Senator from any State imposes this responsibility on each of us to speak to the people wherever they are in this country when we have appropriate opportunities to do so.
We should not be so isolated as to speak only in Washington; we should not be so parochial as to speak only to our constituents. They expect us to be national leaders. For 200 years Members of this body have acted as national leaders by speaking to our people where they are, where they can ask us questions, where they can assert points of view.
Now we are told we have to restrict that in the future. We are as responsive to incentives as anybody. If we have to do this free of charge, how many of us are going to miss votes, incur the displeasure of our constituents, dissipate energy and the time by traveling to, for example, San Diego, Key West, Anchorage, or points in between, at the invitation of groups of citizens who are interested in hearing what we have to say?
I told the Senate the other day, the day my amendments were rejected, when I went back to my office my staff told me I was in receipt of several invitations from student organizations in colleges and universities to come to their campuses to lecture. On what? On this new Senate code of ethics.
Am I to tell them the Senate considers it unethical for me to give them the time, let alone accept the fee they offer, to speak on that subject to them? How ridiculous can we get?
Of course, there is a temptation to abuse this lecture circuit in terms of the time we devote to it or the money we get from it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STONE) . The Senator's 15 minutes have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Just 1 more minute, please.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator may proceed for 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished majority leader.
But I think the abuse is controllable and does not exceed the risk of abuse that pertains to other forms of outside income.
May I say in closing, Mr. President, I understand why the majority leader has felt he had to take the position he took. I do not challenge his motivation in doing so, or the sense of duty which prompted him to do so. I disagree with him on this for the reasons I have stated. I feel very deeply about it.
I am sorry that to some segments of the press my position has been interpreted as evidence of greed on my part. Well, if I were greedy, I would not be a Senator, because I have not gained much by whatever effectiveness I have demonstrated in my 19 years in this body.
People who have disagreed with me have chosen to misunderstand the reason why I have taken the position I have.
I hope in these closing remarks, and I do not intend to have anything further to say on this subject in the course of this debate, I may have put my position into a somewhat broader perspective for those who are interested in a fair assessment of what it is.
I appreciate the recommendation of the majority leader in extending the exemption for this kind of activity. I think that gives the entire Congress time to reassess the wisdom of the policy we are about to adopt.
In voting against the resolution, I hope the majority leader does not assume I am not appreciative of that change in the resolution. But I still cannot bring myself to vote for the resolution, the centerpiece of which has been described as a limitation on this kind of activity. I thank the majority leader and I thank the Senate for listening to me.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Would the Senator allow me to ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 1 minute?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I have listened with great care to the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE).
May I say there is no Senator in this body for whom I have a greater admiration and in whom I place a nigher trust, and for whose integrity I have such high faith and confidence.
There is only one thing I must say, and I respect his viewpoint and respect his reasons for voting against the code of ethics: I do not believe I ever said that the limitation on outside income was the centerpiece. I may have. In fact, the fact that the Senator said that I said that makes me doubt as to whether or not I am correct.
I am confident that I said that that was a centerpiece, because I have felt that there were several centerpieces in this legislation. Some of them have been named by the distinguished Senator from Maine. Among these were the financial disclosure areas, the provisions dealing with gifts, the provisions dealing with lame duck travel, and so on.
If I have at any point said that the limitation on outside earned income was the centerpiece, it was not a precise statement of my viewpoint: I have felt that it was a centerpiece.
I have said, however, that it was perhaps the most symbolic area of the entire measure, which is perhaps unfortunate. I have felt that the public and the press perhaps viewed that as the most symbolical provision in the resolution, and perhaps the litmus test of the resolution, which I think is unfortunate, because there are other equally important areas of the measure, as far as I am concerned.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I, of course, accept the majority leader's definition of his position on the bill. What happened and what was said in a moment of emotionalism on the debate I think ought to be carefully reviewed. So I accept his definition. I do not challenge it at all.
I may have misstated what the Senator intended to do earlier. I appreciate the majority leader's remarks and personally I believe that our disagreement on this matter is over and I feel relatively more relaxed.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator, my friend froth Maine.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much times does the Senator from New Mexico have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 15 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I probably shall not use the full 15 minutes, but I just wanted to make a few observations.
First, let me comment on the last conversation that occurred here on the floor between the distinguished majority leader and the senior Senator from Maine. I think that it is quite obvious that when people like the good Senator from Maine oppose in principle parts of this resolution and vote their consciences against it, it is appropriate that he and the majority leader discuss, as they did, what that really means.
As I watched the debate evolve on the issue that concerned the Senator from Maine most, it appeared to me that, based on my 4 years in this institution, there is not a Senator that was better equipped, that is more entitled than he to make the argument that he made, because there can be no doubt that he feels strongly. His record proves that he did his work in this institution as a Senator, his reputation for integrity and absence of conflict of interest is beyond reproach and second to none. His diligence and time spent and rare missing of committee meetings is legislative history. What he has done here proves that he was able to do that and do it well, and, yet carry on what he thought was in his and his family's best interest by way of the position that he has taken as a Senator on the issue of outside earned income.
I thought no one better could take the issue to the Senate and no one could. argue it better so as to get a true vote without any of the prejudices that come from the special interests that are involved in this resolution. For there are groups involved in it, just as there are in almost all legislation that we consider.
While I do not necessarily agree with him on that position, I want him to know and I want the record to reflect that as far as this Senator is concerned, that has nothing to do with what he thinks about senatorial ethics and the demand that each man or woman who comes to this institution impose on himself or herself a code of conduct that is beyond reproach, as he has. And he did not need a code of ethics to do it.
I want to say, however he votes and whatever his position is, it certainly should not be taken that the senior Senator from Maine is, by some stretch of the imagination, less for a code of conduct and ethics than are others who vote contrary to him, because he need not have one to open his record of 19 years here to scrutiny.
I wanted to say that first.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMEWICI. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico has said, far better than I can say, exactly how I feel with respect to the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) .
Mr. MUSKIE. Thank you very much. I say to the distinguished majority leader (Mr. BYRD) and to my good friend from New Mexico, the Senator from New Mexico is in a position to match my attendance, because he serves on two of the subcommittees which occupy so much of my time.
I want to say to the Senator that I particularly appreciate that compliment from him. It means a deal.