Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Louisiana. Again, I do not think we are that far apart in the legislative language. That is why I would urge all of my friends to vote against the Bumpers amendment and recognize the advancements that we are making and the fact that we will have a bill before this body in the near future. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a field hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 29, 1995, at 9 a.m. and will conclude at 1 p.m. in Flagstaff, AZ, before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on forest ecosystem [[Page S 11472]] health and to understand the science of forest health and discuss the changes necessary to manage for long-term forest health. The hearing will be held at the Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff in Ashurst Hall. The hearing is by invitation only. Witnesses testifying at the hearing are requested to bring 10 copies of their written statement with them on the day of the hearing. Please submit one copy in advance to the attention of Mark Rey, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Time permitting, an open mike session will be held. If interested in giving a 2-minute statement, please contact Senator Kyl's office in Phoenix, AZ, at (602) 840-1891. For further information, please contact Mark Rey, at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a field hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Monday, August 28, 1995, at 1 p.m. in the Shrine of the Ages Auditorium at Grand Canyon National Park, AZ. The purpose of this hearing is to review the priority needs of the park and identify ways to address these needs in the context of the Grand Canyon general management plan as well as alternative plans or solutions. The committee will invite witnesses representing a cross-section of views and organizations to testify at the hearing. Others wishing to testify may, as time permits, make a brief statement of no more than 2 minutes. Those wishing to testify should contact Senator Kyl's office in Phoenix at (602) 840-1891. The deadline for signing up to testify is Tuesday, August 22, 1995. Every attempt will be made to accommodate as many witnesses as possible, while ensuring that all views are represented. Witnesses invited to testify are requested to bring 10 copies of their testimony with them to the hearing; it is not necessary to submit any testimony in advance. Statements may also be submitted for inclusion in the hearing record. Those wishing to submit written testimony should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the committee staff at (202) 224-5161. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider S. 1054, to provide for the protection of southeast Alaska jobs and communities, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, August 9, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Mark Rey of the committee staff at (202) 224-2878.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, good morning. My colleagues, good morning. Mr. President, the amendment that we are going to be voting on very shortly provides the same rules for transportation and lodging in connection with charitable events as the bill provides for political events. That is all it does. It just conforms the two--political vis-a- vis charitable events. Mr. President, much of this debate has been about public perception, that somehow we in Washington are being bought and sold by lobbyists, PAC's, and so forth; if we spend a weekend at [[Page S 10846]] a charitable event which includes lobbyists, that somehow we become polluted with corruption, or so goes the myth. There have been television programs directed at this. But at the same time, there is nothing wrong with Members of this body receiving lobbyist money paying for Senators' meals, Senators' lodging, Senators' transportation at a political fundraiser in Hollywood, in Florida, and you name it. I ask, Mr. President, are we going to sell that bill of malarkey to the American public? I do not think so. It is OK for a lobbyist's money to pay us for travel to fundraisers and PAC's but it is not OK for lobbyist money to be used for travel to an event that will benefit breast cancer screening or poor children in need of medical attention. Mr. President, my amendment simply provides that Senators would be permitted to be privately reimbursed for the costs of lodging and transportation in connection with a charitable fundraising event, only--and I repeat ``only''--if the Senate Select Committee on Ethics determines that participating in the charity event is in the interest of the Senate and in the interest of the United States. I think we have a clear choice. Do we want to establish the same lodging and transportation rules for charitable fundraisers as we have for political fundraising, or do we want to make it harder, harder to raise money for worthy charities? The inconsistency here is an obvious one. The rule says as proposed in the compromise that there will be no reimbursement for charity events if it is associated with recreation. Yet, make no mistake about it, Mr. President, the loophole is this: You can have a political fundraiser for yourself, reimburse Members for travel to that political fundraiser and you can have a charity event, too, and have the proceeds go to the charity. Let us not kid ourselves. What is the source of funds for these events? The source of funds is the same groups, the politicians, political action committees, the PAC's, and so forth. Now, I had intended to offer another amendment which would have required Members to pay out of their own pocket for travel and lodging for political events like they propose now for charity events. I decided not to pursue that because in reality that belongs in the campaign reform effort which is going to be underway at some point in time, and I intend to pursue it at that time. We are not kidding ourselves. We are not kidding the American public. We are simply involved in a bit of a charade here. A significant portion of it is worthwhile. This reform is needed. As far as eliminating reimbursement for travel and lodging associated with charitable events and still allowing for political events when the funds came from the same source is the hypocrisy the Senator from Alaska wants to point out and wants to remind all Members as they look at how they are going to vote on the Murkowski amendment. I encourage them to recognize that significant difference. Members go out, establish a political event, reimburse other Members for travel and transportation. The source of the funds comes from the PAC's and the lobbyists. And they can put on a charity event with it. Perhaps that is what the membership wants. But I suggest the American public is going to question whether we have gone all the way here or whether we have left a loophole. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have followed this debate closely and certainly am sensitive to the efforts to try and bring the pending compromise agreement to a successful conclusion. I heard in the debate the reference that we ought to be treated like other Americans; that the executive branch clearly does not enjoy the broad benefits that we in this elected office enjoy regarding gifts and various other benefits. And that is certainly true. On the other hand, there is a difference. And in my amendment I hope to focus a little bit on that difference. We are a political body. As a consequence, within this compromise there is no prohibition for us to continue to receive reimbursement for travel and for lodging associated with political activities. Who funds those political activities, Mr. President? Lobbyists fund those political activities, and political action committees, PAC's. So on the one hand, we are proposing sweeping legislation that would bring us into conformity with the executive branch. Yet, at the same time, we are suggesting that we not consider the benefits we receive from political activities associated with our office. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to bring into conformity the rules that we would have for transportation and lodging in connection with a charitable event with the rule that exists for transportation and lodging in connection with a political event such as a political fundraiser. Under the measure proposed in the compromise that is pending before us, as I understand it, private entities would not be able to reimburse Members for the cost of transportation and lodging to a charitable event. But I think in the compromise there is reference to meals and attendance at the charitable events being authorized. But [[Page S 10806]] Members still would be permitted to be privately reimbursed if they travel to a fundraising event on behalf of another Member. In other words, Mr. President, lobbyists, PAC committees, and other contributors could be used to reimburse Members for taking a night off and flying to Hollywood, flying to Los Angeles, or flying to Florida for a political fundraiser. We do not address that in this sweeping revolutionary approach toward limitations on our privileges. I find that rather curious, rather inconsistent, but rather evident. Currently, under the Senate Ethics Committee interpretive ruling No. 193, a Senator may accept travel expenses from an official of a district's political party organization in return for his or her appearance at a rally sponsored by that organization. Now, we are different, we indicate, but on the other hand we say we ought to be treated the same as the executive branch. But the executive branch cannot accept travel expenses from an official or a district political party organization in return for his or her appearance at a rally sponsored by the organization. So this compromise, Mr. President, really does not address our attendance, our reimbursement for travel as well as lodging for political fundraisers. I might ask the question why, but I think it is evident to all of us. We just have not considered this as part of the revolutionary changes that are appropriate, that we want to make. But, Mr. President, they are still inconsistent, and they leave something to be desired. Why should the presence of a Member in supporting a charitable organization be treated differently than attending a political function where you can receive reimbursement for travel and lodging. Now, Mr. President, as we know, every Member of this body has at one time or another made campaign appearances for his or her party or a candidate. Often that means flying to another Member's home State, attending a party function, maybe making a speech, sharing a meal, even attending an entertainment or sports function, and in almost all cases the cost is covered by whom? The cost is covered by lobbyists or other political contributors. So what we have here is a situation where a Senator can travel virtually all over the country attending political fundraisers and have lodging and transportation reimbursed. But what the compromise proposes, what it proposes as I read it, is that a Senator cannot attend charity events, events that raise money for worthwhile causes such as a breast cancer detection center, and have those costs reimbursed. The Senator from Alaska does not believe that that is equitable. It does not make sense. Why is it all right for a political action committee to host a $500 a plate political fundraiser or give a campaign check for $4,000 or $5,000 to an elected official through his or her PAC, but there can be no solicitation under this proposal of corporations and other individuals to participate in charitable events that only benefit perhaps a small community, a small State, or those of us out West? Now, I believe that this whole notion of preventing Senators and corporations from sharing in raising money for a worthwhile cause outside the Washington beltway, but allowing large amounts of money as political gifts, smacks of sheer hypocrisy. Do you think, Mr. President, we can get Senators up to our State if they have to pay their way to come to a charitable fundraiser? That is what this compromise suggests. Our charity events will be very difficult to put on. Those who live adjacent to the beltway can put them on right here in Washington, DC. Mr. President, my amendment simply provides that Senators would be permitted to be privately reimbursed--it is very important that we make this distinction because it is a change from previous procedure-- Senators could be privately reimbursed for the cost of lodging and transportation in connection with charitable fundraising events if and only if--and I would appreciate the attention of my colleagues who have labored over this because I think this change is significant--if the Senate Select Committee on Ethics determines that participating in the charity event is in the interest of the Senate and the United States. To repeat that, Mr. President, lodging and transportation in connection with charitable fundraising events if the Senate Select Committee on Ethics determines that participating in the charity event is in the interest of the Senate and the United States. So a Member of the Senate could be privately reimbursed for attending a charitable fundraiser only, only if the Senate Ethics Committee makes a determination that the charitable function is in both the public interest as well as the interests of the Senate. Mr. President, I believe one of the most important responsibilities of a public official--and that is what we are--is occasionally to promote worthwhile charitable causes. Not everything can be done for the public good directly through the Government. Private charities play a vital role in servicing many of the needs of our citizens. Last year in my State of Alaska, my wife Nancy and I were the honorary chairs of a Senator's fishing tournament in Alaska which raised nearly $150,000 for a mammogram machine for the Fairbanks Breast Cancer Detection Center. As a result of that event, the detection center was able to pay off its mammography machine and as a result the center was able to continue to provide free breast cancer examinations to those who needed that service--mammograms for 3,700 women who came to Fairbanks for breast cancer screening from nearly 81 villages throughout the State of Alaska. Mr. President, this year, my wife will be hosting a second event for the center to raise money for a second mammography unit. This will be a mobile mammography unit, one that can move on the limited highways of Alaska. But more importantly, one that will be able to be driven into the National Guard C-130's, and as they train and generate air time they will go into the villages. And the unit would be able to be backed out of the planes and provide services to those women who otherwise would find it very difficult and expensive to travel into our larger communities to take advantage of this type of examination. So if we raise sufficient funds--and I think we will--we will be able to equip this new mobile van for duty in the rural villages of my State. Villagers will not have to come to Fairbanks for tests. They will be able to receive these screenings in their local communities. This unit I think is vital to help preserve the health of Alaska's women. It will service many of the native women in the bush area. Our State's cancer mortality is the third highest in the Nation. It is estimated nearly one in eight Alaska women will develop some signs of breast cancer. Breast cancer screening can reduce those amounts, I am told, by up to 30 percent. I firmly believe without the funds raised from these two efforts that are promoted in association with the U.S. Senate, the health of Alaska women would be potentially marginalized. I am proud of the work those women have done in keeping these units operating and organizing these events. And if we change the rules on charitable events, I am convinced that it will be unlikely, certainly more difficult, and the success of the event might be severely jeopardized. Most of my colleagues are aware that former Senator Jake Garn raised a great deal of money for the Primary Children's Medical Center in Salt Lake City. Mr. President, I can name other charities many Senators have been involved in. I believe Senator Pryor has a golf tournament. Senator Rockefeller has a children's health project in West Virginia. Senator Hatch has a function in his State. I wonder if we really want to seriously end Senators' and companies' participation in these causes simply because there is a so-called perception problem. This discriminates against distant States. I have already mentioned that. Some might argue charitable events will still be allowed under the proposed compromise bill because the only prohibition contained in the bill relates to transportation and lodging in connection with these events. That is probably true in the immediate area. In other words, Mr. President, if you are a large, national charitable organization that has the clout to hold the event in Washington, Members will be able to participate in the event. [[Page S 10807]] But if you are a small organization like the Fairbanks Breast Cancer Detection Center or the Arkansas Opportunities, Inc., you are not going to have the resources or the capability to have your event held in the Nation's Capital. If Senators cannot receive transportation and lodging reimbursement, events like mine, even though they would be subject to the approval of the Ethics Committee, then I think many of these events are going to disappear because it will simply cost too much to get to Alaska and other distant States. So, Mr. President, I think we have a clear choice. I do not dispute the efforts of those who have worked so hard to formulate this compromise. But I think in fairness, we have to examine that we left out a significant portion, and that is the activities associated with political events, where we are still allowed reimbursement for lodging and transportation. And I think that is the inconsistency. We want to establish the same lodging and transportation rules for charitable fundraisers as we have for political fundraising. That is my question. Do we want to establish the same rules or do we want to make it harder to raise money for worthy charities while at the same time continuing the unlimited reimbursement for political fundraising? I hope that my colleagues will reflect on this amendment, reflect on the realization that it is structured in such a way as to mandate our Ethics Committee to review and pass under the legitimacy of the chair. I do want to assure my colleagues I am very committed to this. I want to assure my colleagues, should this amendment fail, I may very well offer an amendment to conform the transportation and lodging rules with the charitable rules so that Members will have to pay out of their own pockets to participate in fundraisers for other political candidates like they would under the proposed compromise, which would ban travel and lodging for charitable events. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 1874 to Amendment No. 1872 (Purpose: To permit reimbursement for travel and lodging at charitable political events)

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I do not believe, as I understand the compromise, that [[Page S 10808]] there is a provision, as the Senator from Minnesota suggests, for reimbursement for travel and lodging if it is not a substantially recreational function.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the floor manager, what official business would be considered charitable?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. And even though the charity was not Senate business in a sense, you made a decision----

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In the particular case I am citing where I hold events in my State, I do not have the same opportunity of those who live in the areas surrounding the beltway. So I am just out in the harsh reality that I cannot get the attendance. That is the problem I have, and it is one of inequity.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. What I proposed, and I hope you consider it, is let the Ethics Committee make that determination.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I could just make one comment to my friend from Wisconsin, it looks like the only way out, there, is to attract the millionaires of the Senate who might be able to come to Alaska and attend a charity event. If it passes in its current form, I will advise the Senator from Wisconsin of my success in attracting the millionaires that are in the Senate to come up. We will have to see. On the other hand, I hope my amendment will be adopted based on the merits of my presentation. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator for that clarification. In all deference, I was not aware that was the case. When the bill was offered as a compromise, it specifically prohibited transportation and lodging for charitable events, as was so stated.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond, because I think there is a distinction here, and that is----

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to pursue this, if I may, because while I do not disagree with the Senator relative to the concept of what we are trying to do away with here, we also have to keep in mind the basic function of a charitable event, and that is to raise money. Now, the question of what kind of an atmosphere do you raise that money in is what we are debating at this current time. Clearly, there have been excesses relative to the recreational events associated with charitable fundraisers. I would be the first to acknowledge that. But what we have now is a proposal that is so stringent, in the sense that we are not allowing the Ethics Committee to review the legitimacy of the charity, we are simply saying if it is not connected with any activity associated with recreation. I ask my friend from Minnesota what he might suggest to be the nucleus for the event, to bring those that will contribute to the charity, and that is the problem of the Senator from Alaska. I assume it would be determined that a fishing tournament, which is what I offer, would be a recreational event. It is not a skiing event, it is not a golf event. I would call it a fishing event. I think in the spirit of the debate it would be considered recreation. Now, that venue, if you will, allows for the opportunity to raise the money for the charity. This Senator would be [[Page S 10809]] very pleased to look at some other avenue, but I, very frankly, think it would be difficult to attract the Senators, the sponsors, and others to come to a luncheon in Fairbanks, AK, for a fundraiser for the Breast Cancer Detection Center because it will not have the same magnitude of my fishing event. However, I am willing to leave that up to the Ethics Committee to make a determination of what the guidelines and rules are, how many hours of free time on the event, where the event is held, or whatever. Right now, this legislation basically puts me out of business of promoting major charities in my State. I understand the intent. But I implore my colleagues to perhaps pursue a little innovation so that we are simply not eliminated from what is a worthwhile endeavor funded by corporations that are willing to make a contribution. I do not want to go into the other issue, but there is an inconsistency there, as my friend from Minnesota, I think, would recognize. While we do not address political activities, they are paid for by the same source--lobbyists, political action committees, and so forth. So I would rather not mix that area. I am looking for relief.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe that we have 9 minutes remaining.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. So you would be reimbursed by the Government for that transportation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is the intention of the Chair after the time is expired to entertain other amendments tonight.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would appreciate a clarification, because I was under the impression that there was no provision for charitable activity associated with transportation and lodging, that there was no provision whatsoever.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I understand. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate tonight. Clearly, the reference to eliminating any interpretation of recreation makes it very difficult to successfully hold a charitable event outside of the beltway, or certainly not further than a reasonable proximity. I think that is unfortunate. If we were to leave the issue at that, I suppose the Senator from Alaska could reflect on the merits of simply an up-down vote on the issue and resolve it. But when the debate goes on and suggests that somehow, because it is a charitable event, that it is subject to charges that inappropriate or poor judgmental actions occurred on the part of Members. Yet when one looks at the source of support for the charitable event or the political event, we find the sources are the same. They come from fundraisers. And we can get full reimbursement for political events, transportation, and lodging from a source that also provides legitimate funds for the benefit of the charity. Funds are coming from the same place. I seem to be the only one that is drawing any attention to that. If we are being critical of ourselves--as we are and as we should be from time to time relative to the appropriateness of accepting funds through PAC's, political organizations, lobbyists and others, for charitable events--and we absolutely ignore the fact that we accept it for political events for transportation and lodging, the same exact sources, I say that at the least we are being inconsistent. [[Page S 10810]] No one in this body wants to make that connection because it is inconvenient. It is embarrassing. After all, we are politicians and politics and serving the people of our State is our business. I think to some extent, attendance at charitable activities, legitimate charitable activities, that would be subject to approval by the Ethics Committee and more or less reviewed by them as to their legitimacy, would be an appropriate measure of legitimacy. Unfortunately, it appears that this particular proposal that has been structured is cast in concrete, and with the exception of the explanation the Senator from Alaska received a few moments ago, clearly charitable activities such as the one that I have discussed simply could not function under this narrow interpretation because it eliminates recreation activities. As we wind down the debate and the time is about to expire, there is indeed a principle involved here, as we address the legitimacy of not only those who suggest that this compromise should be structured in the same way as the executive branch receives consideration for their extracurricular activities. Yet it does not recognize in the same breath that the executive office does not receive reimbursement or travel for appearance at political events. Yet we do. And that is the difference. When we go to the legitimacy of charitable events, we say no, we cannot get reimbursement for travel and lodging, but we can get it for political events. Others say, well, just a minute, the Senator from Alaska does not understand the problem. We are talking about something other than political events now, so that should not be part of the discussion. The Senator from Alaska, I think, would again remind all of my colleagues as to the source of these funds and the principle involved. If for some reason or another we find it unpalatable to accept funds from those who would fund charitable events, one wonders why we would be so eager to accept funds for travel to political events. I encourage my colleagues to think on the merits of legitimate charitable activities which we all participate in, which will be substantially limited, in my opinion, under this very narrow interpretation. And I think that is indeed very unfortunate. I have nothing further to say, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I yield back all time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. So you would be, in that case, reimbursed by the private party----