[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 123 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10773-S10774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                GIFT BAN

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about the 
gift ban, which we will be going to shortly, because there will not be 
adequate time to describe our feelings with respect to this and, 
therefore, I thought I would take a moment right now.
  It seems to me we need to act, we need to act fairly quickly in order 
to improve the law that deals with the kind of gifts that Members of 
the Senate can receive.
  There are three particular reasons why we need to do this. In the 
first place, undue influence is a factor. While I cannot think of a 
situation in which a Senator's vote has been bought by a lobbyist, the 
fact of the matter is that taking gifts creates undue influence. It 
needs to stop. I think reforms in this area will stop it.
  Second, there is a perception in the public that the Senate takes a 
lot of gifts. While it is not necessarily true, the fact any gifts are 
received helps to contribute to that perception. We need to deal with 
that perception problem and not taking gifts, or at least any kind of 
significant gifts, will help deal with that.
  And third, taking things because of our position becomes a way of 
life for some Members. In some cases, there is absolutely nothing wrong 
with it. A very elderly Indian woman who had been standing at a meeting 
for over 1 hour out in very cold temperatures in northern Arizona one 
day when I was finished, and when I began to walk away, slipped a ring, 
a turquoise ring into my hand and then quickly melted away into the 
crowd. I understood the significance of that, and I will never forget 
that as an expression on her part of appreciation of what I was 
attempting to do and nothing more than that.
  So some gifts can be very touching, and they are as important to the 
giver as they are to the receiver. 

[[Page S 10774]]

  By the same token, some gifts become a way of life. I am going to 
step on some of my colleagues' toes when I say this, but, frankly, 
there are things permitted by the rules today that we simply ought not 
to permit. The legislation that is being crafted now, I hope, will 
prevent this kind of activity from occurring and, as a result, will 
deal both with the problem of undue influence and the problem of public 
perception.
  I speak of one example, and that is attendance at charity events. Mr. 
President, you know charities love to have us in attendance. They love 
to put our names on the invitation list, on the honorary committee. It 
lends credence and credibility. We all support charities in that way. 
We will attend the dinner to lend our support and attend the charitable 
event.
  Obviously, the group will many times ask us to come as a guest of 
theirs. We do that and we do it willingly and, obviously, that does not 
buy anything in terms of votes. That would continue to be permitted.
  But the other kind of participation in charitable events is not so 
benign. That is the charitable golf tournament or other things as well, 
but I will use the golf tournaments.
  As I say, I will step on some people's toes. The fact of the matter 
is, when someone flies us a couple of thousand miles away to a resort 
community to play golf because our presence there somehow makes it a 
more attractive event for the people who are paying money to attend but 
we get the free evening and the meal and the drinks and all the rest of 
it and the free golf game and, frequently, a free putter, whatever, 
that goes beyond simply lending our name and presence to an event that 
has a charitable purpose.
  I think it is wrong and, therefore, I support the kind of reform 
which would preclude us from accepting recreational benefits in 
conjunction with our participation in these kinds of charitable events.
  Again, Mr. President, I am just singling out this one example to 
illustrate the difference between the kind of things that have 
historically been felt to be OK and we do not think anyone would 
criticize us for doing, supporting a charity, and, on the other hand, 
those kinds of things which have crept into the Senate business over 
time to give us benefits that the general public does not have.
  Most people do not get invited to charitable events and given a free 
putter and a free trip and free meals and, most important, the free 
golf game. The tee costs of this are significant.
  So the rule I support says if you want to participate in a charitable 
event, be our guest, but you have to get there on your own and you have 
to pay your own costs for participating; they cannot give that to you. 
If they want you to attend the dinner with them, fine, but you cannot 
go there for the purpose of getting some benefit that ordinarily people 
do not get, such as a free golf game and a free trip to a resort 
community.
  That is the kind of thing which, frankly, gives us a bad name, and it 
may or may not, in some cases, lead to the argument that there has been 
undue influence created as a result of the people who are actually 
paying for the event.
  So, Mr. President, I think my time has expired. I simply want to 
begin this debate by saying we will have some tough choices, but we 
have to enact reforms. It is the only way that we will prevent undue 
influence, on the one hand, and, second, end some of the perception 
problems that the Senate has, and at the end of the day our Government 
can exist and function only so long as the people have confidence in 
it, and that means confidence in the people who represent them. Thank 
you, Mr. President.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________