March 18, 1977
Page 8158
AMENDMENT NO. 93
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 93 and ask the clerk to report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SARBANES) . The clerk will state the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) proposes amendment No. 93.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment will be printed in full in the RECORD.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 24, beginning with line 13, strike out all through line 24 on page 26, and insert the following:
"RULE XLIV
"OUTSIDE INCOME
"1. During the period of service in a calendar year of a Senator, or of an officer or employee of the Senate compensated at a rate exceeding $35,000 a year and employed for more than ninety days in a calendar year (unless hired on a per diem basis) , the aggregate amount of the outside income of such individual for such period shall not exceed 15 per centum of—
"(a) the aggregate amount of the salary of such an officer or employee disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate during such period; and
"(b) in the case of a Senator, the aggregate amount of base salary paid to Senators and disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate for that period.
"2. For the purpose of this rule, the term 'outside income' means all income (within the meaning of section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954), other than amounts disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate, reduced by the expenses incurred in the production of such income which are deductible for Federal income tax purposes. Such term includes, but is not limited to (1) income received as a result of personal services actually rendered; (2) income from family enterprises; (3) gains derived from dealings in property or investments; (4) interest; (5) rents; (6) dividends; (7) annuities; (8) income from discharge of indebtedness; (9) distributive shares of partnership income; (10) income from an interest in an estate or trust; and (11) any 'buyout' arrangement from professional partnerships or businesses.
"3. Notwithstanding the limitations of paragraph 1, a Senator, officer, or employee may receive income in excess of the amount allowed by such paragraph if that excess income is—
"(a) necessary to pay Federal, State, or local income taxes;
"(b) received and expended for the purpose of influencing his nomination for election to, or his election to, public office; or
"(c) necessary to meet expenses forced upon him by extraordinary personal circumstances.
"RULE XLV
"ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUSTS
"1. A Senator, and an officer or employee of the Senate compensated at a rate exceeding $35,000 a year and employed for more than ninety days in a calendar year (unless hired on a per diem basis)—
"(a) who owns and controls property (other than a savings account) which is the source of income shall establish one or more trusts and transfer such property to one of such trusts; and
"(b) who receives income from any property which he does not own and control (including a trust of which he is not the grantor) shall establish a trust and transfer such income to such trust, or shall transfer such income to a trust established for purposes of subparagraph (a).
"2. If a Senator, officer or employee receives income in excess of the amount which may be retained under rule XLIV, he shall establish a trust and transfer such income to such trust, or shall transfer such income to a trust established for purposes of paragraph 1.
"3. For purposes of this rule, the term—
"(a) 'trust' means a trust (1) in which the management, investment and reinvestment of property constituting the corpus, and of the income therefrom, is solely at the discretion and under the control of the trustee, and (2) no distributions of income from which may be made to the grantor or any beneficiary except to the extent authorized under rule XLIV;
"(b) 'savings account' means an account in a financial institution upon which interest (as such term is used for Federal income tax purposes) is paid or credited, and, if an individual makes any withdrawal from a savings account during such year to the extent that the amount of such withdrawal does not exceed the amount of such interest;
"(c) 'dependent' has the meaning set forth in section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; and
"(d) an individual shall be considered as owning and controlling any property or interest therein (including a savings account)—
"(1) which he owns jointly with his spouse or a dependent; or
"(2) which is owned and controlled by his spouse or a dependent, but only to the extent that such property (or the amount in a savings account) was acquired from such individual by gift or was acquired, directly or indirectly, with funds or other property provided by such individual.
"4. An individual to whom paragraph 1 applies shall comply with the provisions of such paragraph within 90 days after the date on which such provisions first apply to such individual."
Renumber proposed rules XLV through L (and cross references thereto) as XLVI through LI, respectively.
On page 54, line 17, before "shall" insert "and rule XLV of the Standing Rules of the Senate (as so amended), relating to Establishment of Trusts,".
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I discussed the matter of the timing on this amendment with the distinguished majority leader and the floor manager of the bill, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON) , and we have agreed that I call this amendment up today — that we debate it, using time on the bill and not time on the amendment — that we resume consideration of the amendment when the Senate convenes on Monday.
It is conceivable that some time on Monday we may reach an agreement on a time to vote.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, can we have order in the Senate, please?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate will be in order. Senators will please take their seats and retire from the aisles.
The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, what we agreed to was that we would discuss this amendment this evening, late this afternoon, for maybe an hour to an hour and a half — that the amendment would be the pending business on Monday when the Senate convenes at 1:15 — that I would be recognized at that point to continue the debate — that on Monday we would consider whether or not we could reach agreement on a time to vote on the amendment, probably not before Tuesday or even Wednesday.
I hope that Senators will not be tempted then to put the debate behind them. I think it is important that we start today, that we have a meaningful debate, and I am not interested in any prolonged debate. I am interested only in a full exposure of the issue and all elements of it so that when Senators vote, on it some time Tuesday or Wednesday they may do so having had a full discussion and, hopefully, a full understanding of what is at stake.
I believe that it is the essence of our agreement, but I will ask the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
Yes, that is the essence of our understanding.
Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a unanimous consent request only?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield.
ORDER FOR A PERIOD FOR THE TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS ON MONDAY; CONSIDERATION OF SENATE RESOLUTION 110; AND RECOGNITION OF SENATOR MUSKIE
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President; at this time I ask unanimous consent that after the two leaders or their designees are recognized on Monday there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 2 p.m., with statements limited therein to 10 minutes each and, at 2 p.m., of course, the code of ethics resolution will then come back before the Senate; and I ask unanimous consent that at that time Mr. MUSKIE be recognized so that he might continue his statement in support of his amendment.
I have assured him that I will yield time from my time on the resolution as much as he wants within the time that I have.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I simply wish to clarify one point, if I may have the attention of the majority leader for a moment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. BAKER. The arrangement, I think, is a very good arrangement; and I shall reiterate my understanding of it.
The pending business today will be one of the Muskie amendments.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is correct.
Mr. BAKER. Which amendment is it?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. 93, and I shall describe it briefly in a moment. I will describe it now. It is the one that will apply the 15 percent limitation on outside income to all outside income.
Mr. BAKER. Earned and unearned?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. BAKER. All right. That amendment will become the pending business, and time today and on Monday will be yielded by the Senator on his own account earned under the amendment according to the standing order.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. He has 1 hour, under the amendment.
Mr. BAKER. Additional time, if necessary, will be under the majority leader's time.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. And will be yielded to him.
Mr. BAKER. Nothing in this arrangement diminishes the amount of time under the control of the minority leader?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I have heard none.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, there is no objection on our part to that. I think that is a good arrangement.
I shall address one other question to the majority leader. I know he anticipates things a little.
After the conclusion of the two Muskie amendments, I ask the majority leader what he would anticipate to be the business of the Senate following that?
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, I reserve my right to object to the agreement the leaders are propounding, but I shall wait until they get that settled.
Mr. BAKER. My question of the majority leader is whether he had any view of what might be the business following the two Muskie amendments.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. There will be other amendments, I assume, that would be offered to the Muskie amendments.
Mr. BAKER. I hoped we might be able to establish a sequence of amendments. I have a request, for instance, for the Weicker amendment to follow the two Muskie amendments.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator is correct. I will not forget that.
Mr. BAKER. Does the majority leader care to include that at this time?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes; I will beglad to include that at this time. I ask unanimous consent —
Mr. MUSKIE. May I suggest to the two leaders that it is conceivable that the pending amendment which I called up might be set aside for consideration of the other amendments on Monday because we have not yet reached agreement on a time to vote, and I rather doubt that we want to take all of Monday to debate this amendment. It is conceivable there might be other amendments that could be called up and discussed then. I am not trying to preempt all of Monday or all of Tuesday on this amendment.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I am not trying to insist that the Weicker amendment follow only after both Muskie amendments have been considered, but rather attempting to establish precedence for the junior Senator from Connecticut. I hope the majority leader might then entertain a request for unanimous consent that after the first Muskie amendment, the Weicker amendment might become the pending business.
Mr. MUSKIE. Depending on how the debate flows, as long as we are trying tofollow that, it might be useful at that point to consider the second Muskie amendment. I do not like to foreclose my options at this point. We are all trying, those who are for my amendment and those against it, to gage the timing of the vote to get maximum support. I do not like to foreclose my options. I am hoping the debate will influence Senators' judgment on the merits, and I wish to take advantage of my reading the best time to get a vote to maximize my support, as I am sure the majority leader and minority leader are doing also, and they are more expert at this than I am. I do not want to foreclose the timing of the second amendment. I might conceivably offer a substitute to the first amendment. It depends on timing and how the debate flows. I wish to keep those options open without intending to prolong the discussion of the amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Why do we not, if I may suggest to the distinguished minority leader, simply try to protect the Senator from Connecticut the best we can in his desire to call up anamendment either after the first Muskie amendment or the second one. I think now that Mr. MUSKIE's amendment is laid before the Senate, of course it is the pending question. So depending on the outcome of that, I take it that the Senator from Maine would want to make a decision then as to whether or not he called up the second amendment immediately, and I would hope that we could help Mr. WEICKER some way. I think at this point, from the statement the Senator from Maine has made, it is difficult for us to assure Mr. WEICKER he would be recognized immediately after disposition of the first amendment because Mr. MUSKIE may wish to call up the second amendment.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, on that point I think the majority leader is correct. I think the circumstances are fluid enough so that we do not know what the sequence is and what elaboration of the two Muskie amendments there may be by parliamentary maneuver or substitutes of other amendments. It seems to me we might protect the junior Senator from Connecticut by agreeing that the Muskie amendments would not be temporarily laid aside in preference to amendments other than the Weicker amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is all right.
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and it is sort of in the form of a parliamentary inquiry, I clearly have propounded what I thought to be a unanimous consent request, that we would get time to consider other amendments I had at the desk and I did not hear any objection. The majority leader assured me that I would not be foreclosed. My only concern is I do not have the time, but, if we take up until Wednesday with Muskie amendments 1 and 2 and then the Weicker amendment, Mr. BIDEN and I want to come back with the amendment that was just tabled minus the limitation on charity. It seems like charity carried the field. So we are going to eliminate that and bring that amendment back. And I have the two amendments on conflict, an amendment restricting family business exemption, and the amendment requiring fair market value and true assets and liability statement with copies of tax returns. I want to make sure we do not have to consider amendments by the bushel as we get to the 48th and 49th hour.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I do not think the Senator need be concerned about it. I think he can be assured he will have an opportunity to call up his amendment.
Mr. DURKIN. Then I have no objection to the propounded agreement.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MELCHER). Is there objection?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, what is the unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the majority leader restate the unanimous consent request?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that, following the recognition of the two leaders or their designees under the standing order on Monday, there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 2 p.m. with statements limited therein to 10 minutes each and that at 2 p.m., when the Senate resumes consideration of the pending measure at which time the pending question would be on the adoption of Mr. MUSKIE's amendment, Mr. MUSKIE then again be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I would like to ask if the majority leader intends to make any request now with respect to the Weicker situation?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I think that based on our understanding I really would not know how to phrase such a request.
Mr. BAKER. I think, if the majority leader will yield then, in deference to the request the junior Senator from Connecticut made and which I discussed with the majority leader, I ought to put our colleagues on notice that in order to try to expedite the consideration of the Weicker amendment, following the Muskie series, I will object to any effort to lay aside the Muskie amendments and temporarily take up some other measure.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Wait a minute. I did not include that in my request, but I had so intended and I think we had that understanding, that the Muskie amendments may not be laid aside for any amendment other than the Weicker amendment. I beg the Senator's pardon. I left that out of my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank all Senators.
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. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wonder if we might have order before I begin this discussion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, at the outset I wish to address myself to something the distinguished majority leader said yesterday. I know that he is pressed with business off the floor as well as on, and I do not want to make this reference when he is not in the Chamber.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I am very glad to listen to my distinguished colleague.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator does not have to after the first 5 minutes, may I say to my good friend the majority leader.
But in a story that appeared in last night's Washington Star, entitled "Senate Loses Ethics Enthusiasm," there is this paragraph:
Asked how he thought rejection of the income limitation, coming less than a month after the pay raise, would square with the American people, BYRD replied that in such a case the Senate would be saying, "We have had our cake; now we want to eat it, too."
The implication of that statement, which I find it very difficult to believe the Senator intended, is that unless we rubber stamp the committee resolution — every provision, every paragraph — we are soft on ethics. Or if we raise a question with respect to any provision on the basis of what we consider to be legitimate concerns, we are soft on ethics.
I raise this point, Mr. President, because I detect a reaction of Senators to this whole question something on the order of the panic generated by the reaction of the public to the pay raise — by the reaction of the public to what so many of them conceive to be a lack of congressional ethics — and that Senators are inclined to vote for anything with the name of a "code of ethics," whether it makes sense to them or not.
If we were to enact this legislation under the pressure of that kind of reaction, I say to the Senate we would be making not one mistake, but a lot of mistakes. There are many provisions in this code of ethics that ought to get the closest kind of scrutiny and examination. I doubt that even the members of the Ethics Committee have fully probed the full implications of every new restriction written into this code. I say that not in denigration of the abilities of the people who serve on the Committee on Ethics, but out of my own experience in writing legislation.
Every day I encounter, as a result of examination of this code by my staff, new and serious questions about restrictions that have been written into this proposal, and I urge that my colleagues do examine it closely, that they scrutinize it carefully. Then I urge that our leaders not — even by the remotest implication — refer to that kind of examination as reflecting anything but a commitment to a sound code of ethics.
With respect to my particular concern with a limitation on earned income, I was against such limitations before the pay raise. I would have been against them if they had been attached to the pay raise. And I am against them now, because I think they are wrong, for reasons that, with the cooperation of the majority leader, I am going to have ample time to discuss. But I do not think I have earned the reference to my concern as being "soft on ethics."
I am going to begin my discussion on this matter on a personal note, if I may, because I know of no better way to put the implications of the earned income limitations than in terms of my own experience.
When I was elected Governor of my State in 1954, I had a one man law office. We struggled, my wife and I, to make a living. We got by — not much more, because I was a young lawyer just starting out.
A year before I ran for Governor, I had broken my back, been hospitalized for weeks, and been without an income for months. So when I was elected, I had thousands of dollars of medical and hospital bills, a law office which I had to decide to keep open or close, and I had to look forward to a salary of $10,000 a year as Governor of my State.
I closed my law office. The option was to do that — or take on some young lawyer and hopefully to stimulate business because of the fact that I was Governor — to attract business because of the fact that I was Governor, and build up a practice in that fashion. I chose not to do it, notwithstanding the bills and notwithstanding the limited salary.
I sold my home; because there was a Governor's mansion in Maine. I do not know how long the non-Indians are going to keep it, but there is a Governor's mansion in Maine. So I sold my home.
It would have been hard to maintain it on the Governor's salary, given the ordinary pressures on a Governor's income, so I sold it. The equity brought me $5,000. It was not enough to pay my bills, if I had paid all my bills at that point, but I invested that money in mutual funds as the most ethical kind of investment that I could conceive of from a conflict of interest point of view.
Then I deliberately said to myself, "I have made these two decisions because there is a way for me to augment my income as Governor." There was fresh in my mind the experience of such public figures as Winston Churchill, Eleanor Roosevelt, and others like them who, in a very public way, traveled the lecture circuit, and I was well aware from my own reading of history that the lecture circuit — as a way of enlightening the public, of disseminating information and understanding on the issues — was as old as the Republic. It goes back to the old Redpath Lyceum of the early 19th century and the Chautauqua circuit of the latter part of the 19th century and the early part of this century, a lecture circuit that has been hailed by historians of that period — I will get into that later because I have had it researched — as the most effective means ever devised for enlightening public opinion on the issues which ought to be of concern to the citizen in a free society.
So I said :
MUSKIE, there is your answer. You can perform a public service, you can augment your income, and it will be clean, so you can stay in public life and be economically viable.
That was my decision, and I have been on the lecture circuit ever since. My salary as Governor never rose above $10,000. When I came down here to the Senate, my salary was $22,000. Then it rose to $30,000, and I say to you gentlemen that if it had not been for the lecture circuit, ED MUSKIE would not be here today. I would have quit long ago, because I would have had no choice, none whatsoever.
I read in the press comments attributed to aides of the distinguished floor manager that the purpose of this ethics code is to make it impossible for people to come to the Senate and get wealthy here. Well, did I get wealthy on the lecture circuit?
And those mutual funds. What happened? I sold them. What did I do with the proceeds? I paid my bills. What do I own? I bought a house here in Washington that I bought when I arrived here. I own a summer house in Maine so that my family will have a place to stay when we go back to my home State. That is the real estate I own. Both are heavily mortgaged. The bulk of my net worth statement is attributable to those two pieces of real estate.
Real estate values have increased. Inflation has driven them up higher. Both of those houses are worth much more than I paid for them, much more. But I cannot spend a penny of the increase, not a penny, unless I just go to the bank and borrow to reduce the equity, which I have already done for the last 2 years in order to pay bills.
Commensurate with the increase in the values of these houses because of inflation, the cost of maintaining them has increased.
I own a 1970 automobile and a 1968 automobile. I have not felt I could afford to buy another car since 1970.
I have the cash value of my life insurance, which is about $25,000; the cash value of my Senate retirement; a small savings account, and the furnishings of my house.
I think I have disclosed it all. I do not need long forms or an accountant. I have disclosed it all.
Now I come down to the year 1977. The committee report says I used my time as a Senator to become wealthy, to enrich myself, because I have gone on the lecture circuit. It says to me:
"MUSKIE, you made a mistake down there. You thought you were avoiding the path of enrichment, that you were choosing the path that avoided that, but you were wrong. Unwittingly, you chose a path that caused you to violate the public interest. On the lecture circuit, you used time that you should have devoted to your public duties.
Mind you, nobody on the committee or committee staff has gone over my record to determine whether or not I neglected my duties. They have just said: "'Because you are on the lecture circuit, a fortiori you used time that you should have devoted to your public duties. What is the second judgment they made? That because I was on the lecture circuit, obviously I enriched myself and became wealthy.
What is the third judgment they made? That because I was on the lecture circuit, obviously I must have been involved in conflicts of interest.
They say these three consequences are endemic to the lecture circuit and if I took that route, if I relied on that source of income, I am guilty of neglecting my public duty, of exposing myself to conflicts of interest, and of enriching myself because of my office.
That is the judgment that this committee report makes with respect to my 22 years as Governor and as U.S. Senator. If it says, as it does, that all such activity in the future would have those unavoidable implications, then, obviously, all those implications are unavoidably to be drawn from those who practiced this in the past. How else do you judge it? How else?
There has been an attempt to confuse this. There was an editorial in the New York Times on March 17. Fortunately, I do not think the New York Times is the fount of all wisdom on every subject. They certainly demonstrate that here. Let me quote:
Just imagine the appearances if the ceiling is scrapped. A Senator now earns $57,500 a year. Under the proposed ceiling he could also earn up to 15 percent of that in outside activities, another $8,625. If the Senate eliminates that ceiling, as Senator MUSKIE proposes, it will, in effect, be proclaiming to the public that the new raise is not enough, not even $66,125 is enough. "We want more."
What a pitiful posture I find myself in; what a pitiful posture.
The gentleman who wrote the editorial did not even focus on the issue. What I have said is that if $66,125 is enough for some Senators, it ought to be enough for all Senators. I personally do not think income limitations are the answer to this problem. But if it is the committee's judgment, and if it is the Senate's judgment, that income limitations are the answer, then let us apply them across the board.
I have read everything I could find which has been said in public print by the sponsors of this resolution to find out why they did not do that. The reason is that it is too difficult to do.
What does that mean, may I ask? All it means is that no matter the source of income, once converted to assets that are in place — though by way of investments in securities, in real estate or in any other way — there is something repugnant to the thought of divesting people of it. There is no way of separating the income from the asset. I suppose that is what they mean.
But it is easy to divest someone on the lecture circuit. You just prohibit him from going on it. You divest him of his income just as surely, but it is so invisible, it is so clean. You have not forced anybody to sell assets or to give them away. It is so surgical.
It reminds me of the novel "Call of the Wild," which I have not read since I was a boy.
Remember when the dog teams went through wolf country and one dog faltered? Rather than jeopardize the whole team they threw the weakened dog to the wolves, hoping that would appease the wolves and the team could get away, without jeopardizing any others.
Well, so it is with those of us on the lecture circuit. We are being thrown to the wolves. That is why all this exaggerated rhetoric such as I find in the New York Times.
Because we are so visible. Why are we so visible, may I ask? Because we are the only form of income which has been subject to any form of discipline for 10 years. We have had to report and disclose, and not in categories, I might say. Would not it be nice to report in categories of zero to $5,000? Then people would not know whether we had $500 for an honorarium or $5,000.
We had to report everything, and I had no reluctance to do so. But having reported, then we become the visible target, and since there were a few honoraria that carried an aura of conflict, the public record spread it out and tarnished all the others. But the conflicts in other forms of income that did not have to be disclosed — that did not have to be reported — did not become visible so they did not become targets.
But, having become visible, what is the committee's solution? The committee's solution is to punish us all, whether or not we ever accept an honorarium that involved a conflict of interest.
The ridiculous thing about this resolution is this: If I were to go to a college campus on the invitation of a student lecture group and were offered an honorarium of $1,500 to discuss the issues of the day, that is forbidden. But if I had used that $5,000 from the sale of my house, with the advice of all that expert opinion that is available around this town, to invest in speculative real estate, oil ventures, stocks of any kind of companies regulated by Congress or by executive agencies — if I got $50,000 a year from those kinds of investments — that is all right. But that $1,500 lecture to a college student group on the subject of any public issue you want to name, that is forbidden.
That may seem like justice to my colleagues. It does not to me and it never will. There has to be some kind of judgment on the part of the committee that lecture fees are so prone to conflicts, so much more prone to conflicts than any other form of outside income, that they need to be prohibited.
What is your evidence? Did you examine the confidential filings of Senators in the Comptroller General's office? Did you take testimony? Did you examine the holdings of Senators who have access to that source of income? On what basis do you make such a judgment?
I suggest there is not any such testimony, there have been no such hearings, there has been no such search. But just out of the blue, this form of income, made visible by an earlier form of discipline that the Senate refused to apply to unearned income at the time — making one visible, the other invisible — is now used as the basis for imposing an additional discipline, a divestiture discipline, if you will, upon this form of income.
You may think that is justice. I do not and never will.
Then it is argued that this takes time from the full time job of a Senator, the lecture circuit. The committee did not even attempt to define what a full time Senator is. There are 168 hours in every week. Do we owe that whole 168 hours to the Senate? Is it permissible to take one day, 24 hours, out of that week for my own personal purposes? Is it? If it is, is it any of the Senate's business how I use that one day, whether it is used for giving that college lecture I described a moment ago or playing golf, or spending the time with my family? Or maybe you might give me 2 days every other weekend.
Last year, I did 19 lectures. That is one every 19 days. Do you really believe that cut into the time I should be devoting to Senate duties? Nineteen days.
I shall tell you how I devoted time last year to my committees. In 1975, on Budget Committee meetings, I attended 44 of 48 meetings; in 1976, 28 of 33 meetings. Most of those I missed because I was attending other meetings of other committees.
The Environmental and Pollution Subcommittee: in 1975, 54 of 58 meetings; in 1976, 16 of 24 meetings.
The Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee: in 1975, 18 of 19 meetings; in 1976, 10 of 11 meetings.
My voting attendance record for the 4 years: 90.4 percent as compared to a Senate average of 86 percent. During those 2 years, I was campaigning for reelection and spent 1 out of 3 days in my State doing that and attending to the public business there.
Have I been neglecting my duties? I am not going to try to judge anyone else's use of his time. I made 19 lectures; I did my duty. In addition to this, I monitored this floor for 2 solid years in connection with my duties as chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget, and I think most of you are aware, in a general way at least, of the time I devoted to that responsibility. Now I am told that, because I was on the lecture circuit, I neglected my duties as a Senator.
As a matter of fact, gentlemen, I think it is part of the role of a Senator to discuss public issues in public and I do not think we should limit that role to the people of our State. We are, after all, U.S. Senators. When I came here and was given my first subcommittee chairmanship, it was the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee. I decided that environmental issues needed a constituency. I conducted hearings all across this country over a 3 year period. I made speeches on the lecture circuit all across this country on environmental issues. I helped build a national constituency for environmental legislation, and I have been so credited in the press. Now, is that or is that not attending to the public business?
To have it said that every single speech on the lecture circuit is contrary to the public interest — either from a conflict of interest point of view or a time-consumed point of view — to me, is the kind of restriction that can destroy this institution as a political body. I think there are those not in this body who would like to do that.
In the 19th century — I have mentioned this before — the lecture circuit was already an established and honored forum for public speaking. Public figures like Henry Ward Beecher, Charles Dickens, and Ralph Waldo Emerson could command very high fees. Beecher, for example, made upward of $40,000 a year from lectures at his height. This was more than a century ago.
Daniel Webster is the first Senator whose name appears on available records. In 1837, he spoke to the Concord, Mass., Lyceum for a fee of $100. In the 1840's, Senator Webster lectured throughout New England for $100 an evening on the history of the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln, in 1859, while promoting his candidacy, earned $200 for his famous Cooper Union Address, which also earned him serious consideration for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Senator Charles Sumner also spoke widely before and after the Civil War. He earned between $100 and $300 a lecture in 1861 at various New England lyceums. After the war, he was a principal star of the James Redpath Lyceum Bureau, the first talent agency. By 1880, Sumner received $1,800 a lecture to supplement his Senate salary of $5,000 annually — 1880.
Another popular Redpath speaker was Maine Senator James G. Blaine, advertised as "the silver tongued orator from Maine." The oratory declined since his time.
As the growing Chautauqua movement increased demand for speakers, even more Senators were pressed into service. Some of these were Senators Blanche Bruce of Mississippi and Frank Cannon of Utah, who each earned $500 to $800 per lecture.
The superstar of this period, however, was William Jennings Bryan, who promoted his Presidential candidacy and earned upward of $50,000 a year on the Chautauqua circuit. Bryan, in fact, continued to lecture at Chautauqua while he served as Wilson's Secretary of State, on his vacation time.
President Taft and Wilson's Vice President Thomas Marshall also lectured at Chautauqua while in office.
Around the turn of the century and after, Senators with causes to promote crowded the lecture circuit, prompting one journalist to note that "the Progressive Party was formed from a dozen Chautauqua speakers in Iowa and Kansas." Among the Senators managed by the Redpath Agency were George Norris of Nebraska — who ranked on the "star circuit" — Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, Irvine Lenroot of Wisconsin, James Watson of Indiana, James Vardaman and Byron Harrison of Mississippi, Thomas Gore and Robert Owen of Oklahoma, and Frank Willis of Ohio.
Senator Jonathan Dolliver of Iowa was a popular speaker with the Wright Agency and for a fee of about $800 would lecture on "The Working Man of Nazareth," "A Poor Man's Government and a Poor Boy's Country," or "Public Virtue as a Question of Politics."
Other Senators of this era with other agencies or who booked themselves included Robert Taylor of Tennessee, Albert Cummins of Iowa, Norris Brown of Nebraska and Henry Allen of Kansas.
All the important issues of the 1910's and 1920's were debated on the Chautauqua circuit — labor rights, monopolies, women's suffrage, prohibition, the war in Europe, political corruption — and a stint on the circuit was considered necessary for any political career. For example, four of the six major Presidential candidates in 1924 were veteran Chautauqua speakers.
When the Chautauqua movement was at its peak, one leading historian noted that—
It has done more toward keeping American public opinion informed, alert and unbiased than any other movement. The press has come to be regarded, like advertising, as warped by special interests. The pulpit is restricted as to subject matter and manner of treatment. The moving picture screen ... offers possibilities as yet unknown for good or ill. But the Chautauqua platform has kept above suspicion as the greatest agency of popular education.
I learned of the Chautauqua circuit in the 1920's when I was a boy. I lived in a small town, 8,000 people or less. Every summer, the Chautauqua movement came to town, set up its tents, brought us entertainment, brought us speakers, brought us politicians, and everybody in town turned out.
The Chautauqua movement is gone with the incoming of radio and television.The nearest thing to it today is the college lecture circuit and some other smaller circuits around the periphery of that movement.
I happen to believe that when we go on the lecture circuit we perform a public service and a role that is not only consistent with our Senate duties, but even implicit in our role as U.S. Senators.
Can the lecture circuit be abused? Of course it can, and has been. But every form of outside effort can be abused. It carries the potential. Every source.
If it is thought that our public duties will be distorted because of conflict — and that this is so urgent that we ought to be completely anesthetized from any risk of such conduct, then let us form a professional Senate, a professional House, made up of people whose only income — whose only income — with no outside income of any kind — is the salary they draw from the Public Treasury.
I do not think we want that. We would give every Senator a stake in staying office for life. He would have no outside source of income, no place to turn.
But if we want to professionalize the Senate, that certainly is an option.The committee does not do that. It says, "no."
It is not only this one in this code but I have only spoken to this one. There are professionals who are dealt with even more stringently. Having given up my law office years ago, I guess I have no personal experience upon which to evaluate that judgment at the moment. There may be other Senators who have.
But I believe that is, basically, my case. I am sure there are other arguments that I have thought about over the last few days that escape me for the time being.
I feel very strongly about this, and I say once more that maybe I did make a mistake 22 years ago. But I do know this, that the only thing that has made it possible for me to stay in public life 22 years was my choice — and I think it was an honorable choice — of this source of income for all of that time.
With that, I close.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I was one of the parties who drafted this code, and I should like to say a word to the Senator, in all fairness to him.
He has made a very moving speech and has spoken of matters of which I have a deep feeling, with great experience. There is one point I should like to emphasize to my colleagues.
This code has a conflict of interest section which is its heart. Senator MUSKIE could go the route he desires by simply leaving in that conflict of interest section, plus the disclosure section, plus the enforcement section. He could strike everything else; because if a Senator gets an honorarium or if he engages in practice or if he does any one of a thousand things, such as taking a gift for $15, not $14 — we go into great specificity here — and he is guilty under the conflict of interest section — that is, he demeans the Senate or he demeans his office — if we left the code that way, the Committee on Ethics could bring charges and take action with the very same effect that it could if these specifications were left in the code.
Impliedly, in everything we discussed, we understood that. I draw the Senator's attention to it, as he will go on with this debate, and over the weekend he might think about this and address himself to it. My colleagues are here: Senator RIBICOFF, Senator NELSON, and Senator PACKWOOD. An enormous amount of effort and brainpower were expended in this matter.
There was a feeling that for two reasons we had to be more specific and to implement, in connection with this conflict of interest section, with the specificity he has found difficult to
accept. I understand that completely, but the Senator should understand our dynamics, too. The two reasons were as follows: one, the feeling that the public demanded that we have these specific restraints on ourselves; that if we left it simply to the general conflict of interest section, that would be considered a bailout for us; that our Committee on Ethics never would really do anything about it, and we would just about be back where we started from, which it was felt the public found objectionable, and that that was the reason for the low rating in the public opinion polls. That is one.
Second, we Members were entitled to some specific guidance in individual activities as to what would not represent the appearance of a conflict of interest within the conflict of interest sections, and that this was necessary for the purpose of administration and for the purpose of the Committee on Ethics.
That is the fundamental structure which underlies this approach. Therefore, I agree with the Senator from Maine that he will be posing to the Senate the fundamental question of principle which is involved, one, in full disclosure, plus a conflict of interest section, plus an enforcement section; and that would be, for men of honor, the best plan and would not demean us.
With all due respect to this 15 percent business, I felt demeaned. I have been here for more than 20 years, and I have heard speeches made about the fact that we get an honorarium for 15 minutes of talk to some group, or that we toss it off in 10 minutes, instead of going to Seattle or San Francisco or Minneapolis or Chicago.
In addition, I say to my colleagues — and this is true of many of us here — I can get $5,000 for a speech, whether I was or was not a Senator or whether I had been, even if I had never been a Senator, and there are many here like me. We have many former Governors in this Chamber.
This 15 percent was a demeaning thing to me, so much so that I sought to get the committee to make it $10,000, some round figure — 10 speeches at $1,000 each — just so that it was a respectable relationship to the Senate of the United States, which is a very hard place to get to. You really have to be a person of some consequence in order to attain this post. Or, eliminate it altogether, have nothing, if that is the way Senators felt.
So I hope very much that, with the same thoughtfulness and the same seriousness which characterize the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), and fully in accord with the tradition of the great Senators from his State whom he has named, the Senator will think over the dilemma with which this draft committee wrestled and will let us have the benefit of his thinking, based upon the explanation I have just made, which Senator NELSON or others may correct if they wish, as to the policy and principle which underlie what we sought to do in our work.
Mr. MUSKIE. If I may give the Senator from New York at least my initial reaction to that, it seems to me that the only area in which he really has been specific is this: The "Call of the Wild" figure of speech is very accurate. The weakest dog is thrown to the wolves, and by being specific with respect to him, it justifies the public relationship to everybody else. I do not buy that. Are we going to legislate in terms of our view or only the public perception?
I read a story in the Washington Post the other day, the headline of which said that the Senate is a rich man's club, that all of us are millionaires. Shall I pay my income taxes on the basis of the public perception of what my income is, or shall I continue to pay them on the basis of what it really is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DECONCINI) . The 60 minutes of the Senator from Maine have expired.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I yield from the bill whatever additional time the Senator desires.
Mr. MUSKIE. Are we going to respond to perceptions, or are we going to get down to realities?
The Senator has made a point that I forgot to make, and another point that is implicit in what he has said.
There is a limit on the individual lecture of a thousand dollars. Yet, it is argued that lectures take our time. Well, if the limit were twice that much, it would take half as much time. If it were three times that much, it would take a third as much time.
What connection, for heaven's sake, is there between the limit on individual honoraria if the forum is clean, if there is no potential conflict in the sponsorship? What conceivable connection is there between any legitimate public interest and that limitation?
I have here — I tried to get others but could not get them — the brochures of a talent agency, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
TALENT AGENCY BROCHURES
RALPH NADER
Internationally famous consumerist whose principle activities include auto safety, environmental problems and government officials. The dedicated, hardworking reformer is establishing student based consumer action organizations on campuses across the US, working to involve as many people as possible in the process of upgrading the system.
JOE NAMATH
The brash and exciting "Broadway Joe" brings to the platform a program of anecdotes, observations and his own flamboyant presence. The New York Jets quarterback perhaps epitomizes the modern day sports hero.
SEN. GAYLORD NELSON (D-WISCONSIN)
Environmentalist, consumerist, the national cosponsor of the 1970 Earth Day which climaxed a 2 decade campaign to awaken America to ecological perils. The author of US auto and tire safety standards discusses our blind faith in science and technology and disregard for other forms of life.
ANAIS NIN
She gained international prominence for her four volume Diary, a work now regaining in popularity to the extent that it is now used as a text in feminist studies. French born dancer and author of several novels, she speaks on the personal liberation of women — creatively, sexually and psychologically.
SPENCER OLIVER
The "forgotten man" in the Watergate scandal — Executive Director of the State Democratic Chairmen whose phone at Watergate was the only one known to have been bugged, and who is the foundation of the Democrats' suit against the GOP. Relates his story with charges of collusion on the part of the Democratic hierarchy.
LORD TERENCE O'NEILL
Former Northern Ireland Prime Minister who was forced out of office by his own party when his efforts at peace keeping were rejected by both factions in Londonderry. A moderate, he discusses the prospects for harmony in Ireland and relates the latest developments in the bloody turmoil he tried to prevent.
KELLEE PATTERSON
Actress and jazz vocalist, Miss Indiana in the 1971 Miss America contest; she has applied her training in Afro-American Studies and Sociology to working with the urban poor and young. Though her opinions may at times be surprising, she states, "I am Black, I am a woman and I am young, so my views will never be one-sided."
PAT PAULSEN
Deadpan political satirist who gained fame on the fondly-remembered Smothers Brothers show. His lecture is spiced with films and other visual aids, and covers, among other things, his own campaigns for the Presidency, which were based on "the premise that any boy can grow up to be President, or if he never grows up — Vice President."
ELLEN PECK
Childless by choice, author of The Baby Trap, she has spent years researching the effects of children on the emotional balances of marriage. Nationally syndicated columnist and frequent contributor to many popular magazines, she discusses population growth, sexuality, ecology and individual emotional problems.
REV. TROY PERRY
Ordained minister, homosexual, and author of The Lord is My Shepherd — And He Knows I'm Gay. Founder of the Metropolitan Church of Los Angeles, which openly welcomes the gay community, he is an exciting, thought-provoking orator and outspoken champion for the rights of this oppressed minority.
DR. LAURENCE PETER
Author of The Peter Principle, creator of "Heirarchiology," a science which maintains that "each employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." Critics disagree as to whether his theory is an extension of or a parody of Darwinism, but do agree that it is brilliant on either count.
REV. CHANNING PHILLIPS
One of the most thoughtful and rational of the many voices crusading on behalf of Black power, he questions rather than lectures his audience on Black involvement and, as President of the Housing Development Corporation, he is an expert on urban problems, employment and education.
PIERRE MENDES FRANCE
Stormy petrel of French politics for two decades, former Gaullist Premier, statesman, economist, author and practical philosopher, he remains one of the most colorful and articulate political figures on either side of the Atlantic.
DR. EDGAR MITCHELL
Apollo 14 astronaut who conducted telepathy experiments from the moon. A researcher of psychic phenomena, head of the Institute for Noetic Science, his lecture conducts his audiences on a mental space flight to convey the in-space experience. He explores correlations between religious thought, science and parapsychology.
BILL MONROE
Washington editor of NBC's "Today" show, winner of the 1972 Peabody Award for excellence in journalism, his interviews with Washington personalities are credited with the success of his venture in morning TV reporting. Among the names on his conversational roster are: Agnew, Goldwater, Connally, McGovern, Kennedy, Nader and many more.
DR. ASHLEY MONTAGU
Anthropologist, author of The Natural Superiority of Women, his is that rare combination of both good-natured and straightforward intellectualism. His interests range across the broadest possible spectrum, encompassing science and religion, American values, evolution, modern art and education, and much more.
SEN. JOSEPH MONTOYA (D-New Mexico)
Member of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (the bipartisan so-called Watergate Committee). Prior to Watergate, he was distinguished in his work for the rights of Spanish-speaking Americans.
CHARLES MORGAN, JR.
Noted defense attorney, Southern region director of the American Civil Liberties Union, he characterizes the system as "Law Against the Order." Counsel in some of the celebrated cases of our time, including the draft evasion by Muhammed All, the courtmartial of Capt. Howard Levy and the Georgia Legislature's attempt to unseat Rep. Julian Bond.
ROBIN MORGAN
Revolutionary poet and editor of Sisterhood is Powerful, an anthology of feminist writing. She attacks traditional assumptions about male roles, women and the inequities of society, and offers sometimes shocking solutions. She discusses "The Oppressed Majority" and presents dramatic readings of her feminist poetry.
WAYNE MORSE
Former U.S. Senator from Oregon, educator, arbitrator in labor disputes, he has been a pervasive and outspoken force in America for nearly 40 years. Opposed to the erosion of Congressional power begun during the early years of the Vietnam involvement, he fears a government of men rather than of law.
JAMES MOSELEY
A knowledgeable, articulate and well-documented presentation on Unidentified Flying Objects by America's foremost authority. He offers a revealing, sometimes surprising and even shocking program dealing with UFOs, supplemented by films, radar trackings, documented sightings by pilots, astronauts and astronomers, and even Biblical references.
ROGER MUDD
CBS Washington correspondent and anchorman, voice of the controversial "Sellingof the Pentagon," he is a keen, perceptive journalist who has made Capitol Hill his beat for two decades. At the Democratic Convention, half amused and half appalled, he reported on his own name being placed in nomination for Vice President.
TOM MURTON
Penologist who, in 1967, was appointed to reform Arkansas' prison farm system, and soon found himself ousted after his vigorous investigation uncovered the bodies of nine prisoners. A dedicated advocate of prison reform, he urges courage on the parts of administrators, politicians and the public to end the medieval punishment mentality.
LAURA NADER
Urging a major overhaul in the workings of U.S. justice, she contends that law, as presently practiced, isn't doing the job. A full professor of anthropology, she presents overwhelming documentation of her case in the true style of the Nader family, questioning the relationship of law to the rapid fire developments of the 20th century.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, who heads the list? Ralph Nader. Does anyone think he delivers lectures for $1,000 apiece? I have followed him on many campuses, with a feeling that I was on a much more stringent standard with respect to the size of the fee than he was. I do not know. But I have heard rumors about what he gets.
Apparently, he sees no conflict, and he is an opinion maker. He travels the circuit, influencing public opinion from his point of view, his values. As an opinion maker, does not the lecture circuit offer some possibilities of conflict for anybody, whether it is a Senator, who converts his opinions into votes, or a Ralph Nader or a John Gardner, who converts his opinion into pressure upon legislators? Is there a difference?
The lecture circuit includes people such as Bill Monroe and Roger Mudd, both newscasters, opinion makers. They are on the circuit. I do not know of any limitation upon the total income they can get or the amount they can get for an individual speech. Also on the list are Laura Nader; Pierre Mendes France, the former President of France; Pat Paulsen; Rev. Channing Phillips; Lord Terence O'Neill, carrying on the old English tradition of coming over here and traveling the lecture circuit.
If you go to the booking agencies, you can find brochures like this. As a matter of fact, our good friend, Senator GAYLORD NELSON is on this brochure. [Laughter.]
Mr. NELSON. May I respond to the Senator?
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course.
Mr. NELSON. Not with my consent.
Mr. MUSKIE. What is that?
Mr. NELSON. Not with my consent.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not know anything about that, but I know the Senator has made speeches around the country, whether or not he was on this brochure, and he was one of the originators of the Earth Day Movement. I know he promoted that by travels all across the country, and I applaud it. I was part of it. I did not think I was doing anything evil, and I do not think the Senator from Wisconsin was doing anything evil. I think he was performing a public good. I am not the one who says this is bad; it is the committee who says it is bad.
Mr. NELSON. I have never said it was bad. Where does the committee report say it is bad?
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, if it is not bad why is it so strictly limited?
Mr. NELSON. The Senator's charge was the committee report said it was bad. Where is that in the report?
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator there is that old saying when something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it has got to be a duck and when you cut my income by two thirds, because I am engaged in this lecture circuit, you must be making a judgment about its public value and about its relevance to the public interest.
If I shorten that—
Mr. NELSON. That is something quite different from what the Senator said.
Mr. MUSKIE. If I shorten that by saying that you are saying it is bad, well then prove me wrong; prove that what I am doing is bad, if you will.
Mr. NELSON. I might say to the Senator I do not know where the line is drawn, but this body drew a line on limitations twice, at $25,000, and at $15,000. So it is not a question of whether it is good or bad. I have never said that, but it is a question of where the line should be drawn, that is all.
Mr. MUSKIE All right.
Mr. NELSON. But the Senate drew if twice.
Mr. MUSKIE. All right.
Now, I will take some of the blame for that. I did not raise the question those other times.
I panicked, as I think this committee panicked under the pressure of public emotion related to ethics. I did not think either of those limitations was right. The first one came at us out of a House-Senate conference on a totally unrelated matter, it came at us in the conference report, so those of us who raised questions about it had to raise them in terms of trying to defeat a conference report on an important bill. I do not remember what it was. I think it was the campaign reform legislation. So it came at us out from behind the barn, and I did not get up and challenge the campaign reform bill by raising that issue.
All right, I will accept the blame for that. But I do not consider that to have been a deliberate rational Senate decision following complete exposure of the issue, by any means.
Now, the limit last year raised it, suggesting not that the Senate thought the original limit was right but that the Senate thought that the original limit was wrong, and that the new limit which was the product of more Senate consideration than the first one — is the one presently written into law. My second amendment would leave that new limit in force.
So if the Senator from Wisconsin is that much impressed by previous Senate judgments, maybe he will join me in my second amendment, and I do not gather that is the Senator's inclination.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is not the Sena tor's inclination at all.
Yes, I yield.
Mr. NELSON. That was not the point I was making.
Mr. MUSKIE. I know, but when the Senator makes a point he has got to expect to get the reverse thrown at him.
Mr. NELSON. Well, all I would expect was a response to the point. That was a beautiful dance around the point.
The Senator asserted that we had said honoraria were bad.
Mr. MUSKIE. And you had.
Mr. NELSON. Then when I said where in the report do we say that, and the Senator from Maine said:
Well, I am entitled to conclude from the report that with this limit you must assume it is bad.
My response was that this is not the issue. The Senate twice set a limit. I do not believe the Senate set the limit at $15,000 and $25,000, because they thought it was bad per se to give lectures for honoraria. That is my only point. I have never said on this floor or off the floor that they are bad per se, and the Senator has insisted that that is what my position is. That is not at all the position of the Senator from Wisconsin.
This Senator is just trying to correct the RECORD. It is unreasonable for the Senator to take the position that because the committee suggests an $8,600 limit, it means this Senator or the committee believes that it is bad per se, but when the Senate set it at $15,000 or $25,000 that did not mean it was bad per se, the limit must mean the same thing on each occasion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, using the Senator's logic, since I cannot find anything enshrined anywhere that tells me that $15,000 or $8,500 is some magic dividing line between what is good or bad—
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, may I cut in?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not at this moment — using the Senator's logic, I could argue that you could reduce it to $1,000 or $500 and you would not be making a judgment that it was bad.
How ridiculous can you be, Senator. I mean, you have imposed a discipline that has the effect of cutting out income from some of your colleagues in this body. And if you did not do it, because you thought it was in the public interest, you had no business doing it.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I will in a moment. You had no business doing it. You referred me to the committee report. I have looked at the committee report, and in the section dealing with this you do not even talk about conflict of interest. I do not know why.
I assumed this whole code of ethics had something to do with preventing conflicts of interest, but I did not find anything — maybe I overlooked it and theSenator will remind me if I did — but what I find instead is an attempt to convert this argument against lectures into an argument based on the time it takes, and on the enrichment argument that I touched on earlier. Those are the two.
We ought not to allow a Senator to take lecture fees because it takes time.
Why did you not say you believed it was because it has a potential conflict of interest? Because there are other forms of income that carry potential conflicts of interest. So you did not want to say this per se, because you could not prove it in terms of conflict of interest. You could not prove that every lecture fee is bad in terms of conflict of interest. But the result for us, Senator, is exactly the same as though you had said it was bad. If you do not like the word "bad," use your own euphemism; you choose it. It is bad to me.
I do not think a play on words is going to minimize the impact of this one-sided kind of discipline and the lack of justification for it.
I have yet to hear a justification for it. I would like to refer, if I might, to something that is attributed to one of your aides. It appeared in the Washington Post March 17:
If a Senator comes to the body wealthy, there is not a great deal you can do about it. But if he comes without wealth and engages in personal services to become wealthy that is a different case.
Here I stand convicted as one who came without wealth and who engaged in personal services to become wealthy.
Mr. NELSON. Is that quote attributed to anybody?
Mr. MUSKIE. What is that?
Mr. NELSON. Is that a quote—
Mr. MUSKIE. No; it is not. It says, and I will read it:
An aide to Senator GAYLORD NELSON, who chaired the Special Committee that drafted the proposed code, said yesterday that the Muskie proposal seemed to be gathering some support. He argued against it, however, saying—
And then the language that I have read.
Mr. NELSON. Will the Senator read it again?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; I will read it.
If the Senator comes to the body wealthy, there is not a great deal you can do about it. But if he comes without wealth and engages in personal services to become wealthy, that is a different case.
So I am grouped presumably with those who came without wealth and engaged in personal services to become wealthy. That judgment is passed on me notwithstanding the fact that I fully disclosed my income and my net worth for the last 10 years. But, alas, I engaged in personal services to become wealthy and had to be disciplined, because there is not a great deal you can do about those who came wealthy.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. NELSON. Let me say I have no notion whether a member of my staff said it or not. But if one did it was a great piece of wisdom. I hope the Senator has a mind subtle enough to recognize that the statement is not an attack, but reflects an exquisite piece of irony. It is true if you come here rich there is not much one can do about it at all.
Mr. MUSKIE. I bring to the Senator's attention my amendment — I have forgotten that — my first amendment.
This provides, as I think the Senator knows, that a Senator with income producing assets when he comes to the Senate must put them in trust so that he will not spend his time managing his assets. We would not want him to waste a second of time managing his assets. So he appoints a trustee and puts his assets in trust and he can collect income from the trust while he is in the Senate up to 15 percent of his basic Senate salary. He is not divested of income above that percentage, as the proposed limitation would divest me of my income. Rather, it goes into the body of the trust and is available to him when he gets through his Senate service. It might be a temptation to him to retire earlier than he might otherwise, which would give other young people a chance to come to the Senate. There is a technique.
I know what arguments the Senator makes against it:
Oh, you cannot in effect divest people of assets. You know, it would not be constitutional.
And the Senator can bring up all kinds of examples of inequitable situations it would generate. But there is a way of doing something about it if the Senator means what he says — that we ought to eliminate income that carries a possibility of a conflict of interest.
Mr. NELSON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. DURKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NELSON. The Senator yielded to me just for a moment.
If that proposal were constitutional, which it may be, the Senator does not know...
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator's proposal with respect to us may not be constitutional.
Mr. NELSON. If it were constitutional, and if it could pass and become the rule and not defeat the proposal, I would think very seriously about that.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator did not think that seriously about his restriction on my income. I think that is unconstitutional.
Mr. NELSON. It was not the intent of this Senator to bring it up, but three times now the Senator from Maine has complained about my cutting his income. May I suggest. to the Senator from Maine that when he voted against the salary increase he was trying to cut mine? I do not shed many tears about those who stand on this floor and complain that we cannot have unlimited outside income and then will not even cast a vote to increase the salary in some orderly fashion for at least half the increased cost of living.
If the Senator had not voted that way, the Senator might have an argument of some merit. But having voted that way, I do not think there is much merit in the argument.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad to respond to the Senator. If I voted that way and carried the Senator with me he would be here with this today. He would be here with this limitation today.
Mr. NELSON. I do not understand the Senator's statement.
Mr. MUSKIE. Look, this proposal to limit income has been maturing out there in the outside world and in areas here. It would have been offered whetheror not the pay raise was enacted.
The Senator himself has brought up two limitations that were proposed by the Senate, and this issue had nothing to do with my vote on the pay raise.
I am glad to explain that vote to the Senator. For him to suggest by implication that my vote on that was related to this is without any foundation whatsoever. But I happen to have run for office last year, and I have never found my people so concerned about the possibility that this body with the power to bring itself relief by way of income should do so at a time when so many of our people had no such power. I had to campaign from one end of my State to another constantly confronted by this issue, and I had to answer those people in the context of the circumstances in which I saw them living. I took this question on radio call-in shows. I took it in audiences. I had to form a judgment, not in January, but in October, whether I thought they had a legitimate complaint. I formed that judgment. I was not about to come here in February, a few months later, and vote differently on the pay raise increase than I told them in October I would. And I make no apologies to the Senator or any other Senator for that record, and what I did was unrelated to this.
But the second point I make — this also is unrelated — is that the pay raise taken with this proposed limitation means for me a reduction in income, not an increase. It means a reduction in addition to the reduction that I took when the earlier limit on earned income was approved by this body. So I will have taken two reductions in income in the period that the cost of living increased as the Senator so eloquently pointed out a moment ago. I do not think it is incumbent upon the Senator from Wisconsin and me to debate the moral values which prompted the Senator to follow the course that he did and me to follow the course that I did. I voted against the pay raise for reasons that I thought were good from a public interest point of view. I am opposing this earned income limit for reasons that I think reflect the basic inequity of what it does, because I think it runs counter to the public interest.
At this point I yield to my good friend from New Hampshire.
Mr. DURKIN. I thank the Senator from Maine. I wonder, in all sincerity and complete respect, if two giants in the Senate are not dancing around the real issue.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is conceivable.
Mr. DURKIN. Is not the real issue not so much how much you take, but is not the real issue whom you take it from? Is not the thing that upsets the American public the perception that we are taking money from those who have an interest in legislation that is before this body?
I wonder if what the limitation really is, is it not an effort to make it a little more palatable back home. Is not the real issue, and what we should be doing here, saying that it is unethical to take honoraria from those who have legislation before this body, those who are registered lobbyists, or those who have political action groups that are in the business of engineering legislation? If those were eliminated, would the problem not be solved?
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURKIN. In about 2 seconds. I am at a loss as to why the Senator from Maine could not embrace the amendment that was offered before, and I wonder now if the Senator from Maine, if we for the present dropped the whole question of the restriction, or giving the excess to charity, if the Senator would address the real problem, and the Senator from Wisconsin as well, and come out and say there is nothing wrong with following Ralph Nader to the University of New Hampshire and being paid $1,000 out of the student education fund. The students have no direct interest in legislation.
I say there is nothing wrong with going to Alabama and speaking before the Alabama Democratic State Committee during the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner. I do not think anyone in this body or any cab driver in America thinks that is wrong. What is perceived to be wrong is taking money from people who have an ax to grind.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me answer the Senator's question, and then I will yield to the Senator from Oregon.
I said during the debate on the Senator's amendment that if it did not have that first part in it, I would support it.
Mr. DURKIN. Do you want to add that to your amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE, I will be glad to let it stand on its own.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, the Senator said the real issue is not how much we receive in outside income or honoraria, but whom we receive it from; is that right?
Mr. DURKIN. I think that is what the average person back home feels.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Then would the Senator from New Hampshire, if he were to introduce his amendment again, eliminate the 15 percent limitation and allow those on the lecture circuits to earn without limit as long as they do not receive it from the groups the Senator mentions?
Mr. DURKIN. I would not be disposed to do that, for the very reason I have previously suggested to the distinguished Senator from Maine that he incorporate it in his own amendment, and he says it is going to fly on its own weight.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, to eliminate some confusion, the amendment that is pending does not address the 15 percent limit. My other amendment does. It is inappropriate to attach the amendment the senator is suggesting to the pending amendment. The suggestion of the Senator from Oregon is appropriate.
Mr. PACKWOOD. If I correctly understood what Senator DURKIN is saying, he objects to outside income coming from anybody with a political ax to grind, any labor organization, and so on.
Mr. DURKIN. Right; as does most of the American public.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Right; I agree with that, and would support it. We should not be receiving honorariums from them. I have always supported that viewpoint.
I have been struck by a seeming blind spot in the position of the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee says you can receive money from public interest groups up to $8,700. If we eliminate any money from the public interest groups, as defined in the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, why not eliminate the $8,700 cap? If you can speak to a group that may be legitimate — a university student body, as the Senator mentioned, or the national prayer breakfast — I notice a speaker got $1,000 for speaking at the national prayer breakfast; who is the conflict with there? If the Senator will eliminate the cap, I will support his amendment.
Mr. DURKIN. My amendment was tabled resoundingly. Only myself and 14 other Indians were left on the plain, with no offense to the Senator from Maine, whose State has problems with Indians.
Mr. MUSKIE. You will have to attract the support of a few more Indians.
Mr. DURKIN. I ask unanimous consent, then, to call up my amendment in a modified fashion, without the charitable restriction in the first sentence; and we will see if it is adopted; then we will cross the next bridge.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Not without the cap?
Mr. DURKIN. No, one thing at a time. I have learned you have to walk before you try to run.
Mr. MUSKIE. I suggested that, and the Senator did not like that answer.
Mr. President, my amendment is pending, and I think my proposal should be considered.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. DURKIN. Who has the floor, anyway?
Mr. MUSKIE. I have the floor, and my amendment is pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has control of the time. Does he yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I have had the floor for quite a while.
Mr. NELSON. I would like a couple of minutes. We will be in the same discussion next week, and next week we can go into it in some depth, but I did not realize we would be here this late today.