I would say, Mr. President, that the Bumpers amendment is clearly the direction at this point in which we ought to go. I think it is going to be an administrative nightmare for the Ethics Committee and a complete disaster for every Senate office to try to determine what is or is not worth $20, dealing with all of these exceptions which the Bumpers amendment does not touch. But even that is going to be troublesome in terms of what is a friend and what is not a friend. But at least, it seems to me, in order to try to have some simplicity, something at least understandable to the reasonable person, and also to cut down, from a selfish point of view here, to cut down on the workload of the Ethics Committee, it seems to me we ought to go down to zero. So I think the Senator from Arkansas has a good idea here, given where we are in the course of this debate.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the Bumpers amendment during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Dale Bumpers
I will give you an illustration of how that works. Betty's father died in 1986. He was not a wealthy man, but he was not poor. He left her land and money, and in the following year my assets went up rather substantially on my ethics…
This land we are talking about, Barrick did not even file a claim for that land. Somebody else did. You know, people go out there and they put up stakes and they just lay claim to it. Do you know what Barrick did? They found this site. The…
I appreciate the Senator's statement. My arguments are not punitive. I am not trying to punish the mining companies, and I am not trying to punish the people who work for the mining companies. Certainly the Senators who stand on the floor…
So gifts having a value of less than $20 from the same or different sources on a basis so frequent that a reasonable person is led to believe the Member or officer or employee is using the public office for private gain. Let me go back up…





