Carl Levin

You can solicit. You can solicit from a charity. So could she. You cannot solicit from a lobbyist. So the answer to your question----

I understand that. If that is a real possibility, if I wanted to accept a bottle of wine every single day worth $20 or less, I would ask the Ethics Committee, can I do it? But I have to tell you, there is an easy answer to that. I would…

The issue is really the same today, because the Senator could take gifts now under $100. The question is, does that create any kind of impression? If you really had a problem with that, if you in your good conscience, and you have a good…

My friend, who is an awful good lawyer--I do not think I have known a better one--does he not agree the reasonable person test is used all the time in factual determination all the time? The reasonable person test is throughout our rules…

There is a proposal, however, that is acceptable to me as one Member that we keep the current limit of $250 on a gift from any source with a waiver possible from the Ethics Committee. That is the current rule which is that you have a…

It is that under our bill there is no limit on the amount of a gift you can take from a close personal friend.

We give the definition in the bill. The Senator uses his judgment as to whether or not it meets that definition.

If the Ethics Committee wants to challenge the Senator's judgment who a personal friend is, I have more confidence in the Ethics Committee. I think the Senator from Arkansas does, too.

There is a suggestion that we put in a limit of $250 on gifts, for instance, from personal friends. There is no such limit in my bill. So there is no need for that waiver from the Ethics Committee under my bill. However, there are a number…

The amendment would not prohibit the Senator from Alaska from receiving fish, or other home State products, and distributing them to the public or Members as he sees fit, just as under the current law. As to the disclosure requirement, it…

I wonder, while the Senator is thinking if I could respond to the Senator's points because there were a number of things which were not accurate in the summary of the Senator from Arkansas. First of all, you do not have to report the meals…

Let me read the exact language: ``No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate, or the spouse or dependent thereof.'' It is exactly the same language as the current rule.

That is a proposed amendment, to have the same $250 limit in the bill before us, as currently exists under the rules. Someone has proposed that we have that same $250 limit subject to the waiver of the Ethics Committee which we have under…

The answer is zero from lobbyists, that is correct. And from other than lobbyists, there is a $20 rule. That does not mean you cannot go out to dinner. It means if it is over $20, you are going to have to either pay for it yourself, unless…

It means the current Senate rule has the same problem which my friend from Alaska describes. The current Senate rule applies to spouses. Do we have a constitutional right to apply that rule to spouses or to dependents? The answer is that…

If someone gave your daughter now something greater than-- now--something greater than $250 from any source, she would be covered now, under current rules. So in terms of the coverage of your daughter, your daughter is covered under the…

The rules apply to your daughter as they have since 1989. However, there is a personal friendship exemption which I know would cover the situation that the Senator from Alaska outlines.

You want to know does the rule apply to your daughter. The answer is, the rule has applied to your daughter since 1989 from any source. So the language ``no Member, officer, employee of the Senate, or the spouse or dependent thereof'' has…

The solicitation which I think my good friend from Louisiana is talking about, putting the name on a letterhead, is not a specific solicitation. That is a general solicitation. This language is specifically saying you cannot solicit a…

I think the language is very clear, that you cannot to a lobbyist or a foreign agent do any of the prohibited practices here. To a registered lobbyist or a foreign agent, you cannot do any of these things specified.

It is in the judgment of the Member if it is a close personal friend, as we have outlined it in this substitute which the Governmental Affairs Committee has approved. The answer is correct, and that is an exception which I think most…

The contribution that the Senator referred to is to a legal defense fund. That is not covered by the $20 rule unless there is a contribution by a registered lobbyist, as I have read. It is permitted for others to make a contribution to the…

What surprises me about the point here is that it is the same point that the Senator from Louisiana made last night; is that in his substitute the same language appears. In his amendment, the Johnston amendment, you have the same…

I am suggesting that the Senator is proposing that there be a toughening of the penalty, instead of toughening the rule in a significant way, and I think that really is a diversion from the issue before us, which is whether or not we…

Yes. Mr. McCONNELL. The issue is whether you want to trivialize the Senate or not, in my view. The goal of the Johnston-McConnell. substitute is to toughen the penalties for egregious offenses. If the Senator would like to toughen the…