[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13064-H13086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES GIFT REFORM ACT

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 268 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 268

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 250) to 
     amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide 
     for gift reform. The amendments recommended by the Committee 
     on Rules now printed in the resolution are hereby adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution, as 

[[Page H 13065]]
     amended, and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except:
       (1) Thirty minutes of debate on the resolution, which shall 
     be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Rules;
       (2) The amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by Representative Burton of Indiana or his designee, which 
     shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable 
     for thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and
       (3) If the amendment printed in part 1 of the report is 
     rejected or not offered, the amendment printed in part 2 of 
     the report, if offered by Representative Gingrich of Georgia 
     or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall 
     be separately debatable for thirty minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. All points 
     of order against the amendments printed in the report are 
     waived. During consideration of the resolution, no question 
     shall be subject to a demand for division of the question.

                              {time}  1430

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for debate 
purposes only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked unanimous consent to revise and extend his remarks 
and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 268 provides for the 
consideration of House Resolution 250, the House Gift Reform Rule. The 
rule provides for 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled 
between myself and the ranking minority member of the Rules Committee. 
The rule provides that the technical amendments adopted by the Rules 
Committee are considered as adopted.
  Following debate on House Resolution 250, the rule makes in order the 
consideration of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to be 
offered by Representative Burton of Indiana or his designee.
  The rule then provides that it is in order, if the Burton substitute 
is rejected or not offered, to consider an amendment by Gingrich of 
Georgia or his designee.
  Following the disposition of that amendment, if offered, the House 
would then vote on final adoption of the resolution as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 250 was introduced on October 30 by our 
Rules Committee colleague, Mrs. Waldholtz of Utah, with a bipartisan 
group of cosponsors. It is identical to the Senate gift rule adopted on 
July 28 by a vote of 98 to 0. There are no substantive changes.
  An earlier version of the resolution, House Resolution 214, was 
introduced on September 6 by Mrs. Waldholtz. It amended the existing 
House gift rule, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Given that committee's 
heavy workload, the leadership requested that the Rules Committee 
assume responsibilities for reporting the gift rule.
  Mrs. Waldholtz accordingly redrafted her resolution as a new House 
rule and introduced that version as House Resolution 250 which was 
referred to our committee.
  On October 27, the majority leader held a press conference at which 
he promised that both the gift rule and the lobbying disclosure bill 
would be considered by the House not later than today, November 16.
  I am pleased that both the majority leader and the Rules Committee 
have been able to keep to that timetable. I especially want to commend 
my colleagues for enduring the forced march we put them through over 
the last 3 weeks to come up to speed on this issue.
  We conducted two hearings at which we heard from numerous House 
Members as well as public witnesses. Then, on Tuesday of this week, we 
marked-up and reported by unanimous voice vote House Resolution 250 
with only minor, technical changes recommended by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the ethics committee.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 250 would apply a new and tighter gift 
rule to House Members, officers and employees. Whereas at present, 
gifts under $50 are not counted towards the annual aggregate of $250 
from any source, the new gift rule would lower that exempt threshold to 
gifts under $10. No formal record-keeping or disclosure is required for 
gifts of $10 or more--only good faith compliance.
  And the proposed new rule also lowers the annual limit for total 
gifts from the same source in a year from $250 to $100.
  And, whereas, at present meals are not counted towards the gift 
limit, under the proposed new rule, meals of $10 or more would be 
counted.
  The new rule differs from the existing rule in that it does exempt 
gifts from close personal friends. However, it requires an ethics 
committee waiver for any gifts from friends that are over $250 in 
value. And as with the present rule, gifts from relatives are exempt 
from the limits.
  Mr. Speaker, another tough new provision of this proposed gift rule 
is the more frequent and detailed disclosure of reimbursement from 
private sources for travel related to a Member's official 
representation duties. These include making speeches to groups, fact-
finding, and substantial participation events.
  Whereas the current rule requires annual disclosure and does not 
require a detailed accounting of reimbursable expenses, the new rule 
requires that disclosures be filed with the Clerk within 30 days of 
such travel, and that a good faith estimate be included of total costs 
for travel, lodging, meals, and other expenses.
  Mr. Speaker, I won't go into greater detail at this time on the 
proposed new rule, since other members of the Rules Committee will be 
doing so, and there will be further time during debate on the 
resolution itself.
  I would point out to Members that we could have brought House 
Resolution 250 directly to the floor as privileged motion without a 
special rule. But, in that case, there would be no opportunity for 
amendments.
  But because it was the strong feeling of many Members on both sides 
of the aisle that there should be an opportunity to allow for the 
consideration of alternatives, we have put out this rule that will 
permit the possible consideration of two such alternatives.
  One is by Mr. Burton of Indiana. It would retain the current $250 
annual aggregate on gifts, but would lower the exempt category from 
gifts under $100 to gifts under $50. Moreover, the Burton substitute 
would include meals towards the limit if they are $50 or more.
  Another major difference between the Burton substitute and the base 
text is that the Burton substitute would permit Members to be 
reimbursed for travel for charity events.
  Finally, the rule permits the offering of an amendment by the Speaker 
or his designee that would ban all gifts from persons other than close 
personal friends or relatives, and gifts of personal hospitality.
  In other words--there could be no gifts or meals from people who are 
not friends or relatives.
  The Speaker's amendment would also make clear that Members could take 
a spouse or dependent child to privately reimbursed, events connected 
with their official duties--as they now may under existing rules--
without having to make a determination that the presence of the wife or 
child ``is appropriate to assist in the representation of the House.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, a fair rule, and one which does 
allow for both stricter and less strict alternatives than House 
Resolution 250. I urge adoption of the rule and of the new gift ban 
reform resolution before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am extremely gratified that we are here today to begin 
the debate on reform of the gift rules. I rise, however, in reluctant 
support for the rule which has been reported by the Republican majority 
of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, for 11 months my Democratic 
colleagues and I have attempted to bring this issue before the House. 
Now, when at last the Republican leadership has scheduled this reform 
for the consideration of the full House, they have stacked the deck.

[[Page H 13066]]

  Mr. Speaker, instead of providing the House with an opportunity to 
take a clean vote on the Senate-passed gift reform proposal, this rule 
compels the House to vote down two gift reform amendments before the 
House ever gets to House Resolution 250, which contains virtually the 
same language as the Senate measure passed last July. The resolution is 
sponsored by the gentlelady from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], as well as a 
number of Democrats and Republicans. House Resolution 250, closely 
resembles the proposal of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], which 
Democrats have tried to bring to the House on six separate occasions 
this year. The resolution was reported by the Rules Committee with only 
minor modifications.
  While most observers recognize that the Rules Committee proposition 
is not perfect, it is clearly far superior to the substitute proposed 
by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], but also provides far more 
flexibility for Members than the proposal which may be offered by the 
Speaker. This rule stacks the deck in such a way that the House will be 
forced to choose between more of the same--which is the Burton 
substitute--or a modified zero gift rule--which is what the Speaker's 
amendment offers. If either one of those propositions prevail, then the 
Waldholtz bipartisan proposal will never even come to a vote.
  Never mind the fact that the Rules Committee held one briefing, two 
hearings, and one markup on the Waldholtz proposal. Never mind that the 
Rules Committee proposal was carefully examined by the Standards 
Committee and contains amendments that were recommended on a bipartisan 
basis by the Chair and ranking member of that committee. Never mind, 
Mr. Speaker, that the bipartisan group of Members supporting gift 
reform asked that House Resolution 250 be quickly sent to the floor and 
considered without amendment.
  So what has the Rules Committee done, Mr. Speaker? In effect, the 
committee has ignored the product of its own labors and has given us a 
rule which may very well assure that the Waldholtz proposal may never 
be voted on directly.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Members of the Rules Committee support 
reform, but we question how we can move toward reform when this rule 
which puts golf outings ahead of real reform. We will support this 
rule, but it is a shame that the House is being placed in this 
position. Yesterday an amendment was offered to this rule which would 
have allowed for a direct vote on the Waldholtz proposal and every 
member of the majority--that's right, every Republican Member including 
Mrs. Waldholtz, the sponsor of the proposal--voted no. I have to ask, 
What's the problem, Mr. Speaker? Why can't we just take a vote on a 
proposal which enjoys such wide bipartisan support?
  Mr. Speaker, this issue, and the closely linked issue of lobby 
reform, have enjoyed support from Members both Democratic and 
Republican, liberal and conservative, senior and junior. Congressional 
reform is not a partisan issue--it is an issue that matters to all 
Americans who cherish this House as the House of the people. We cannot 
let the appearance of impropriety continue to add fuel to the fire of 
public animosity toward the Congress. If we do not pass the Senate-
passed version of gift reform, I fear we will, to a man and a woman, be 
held in scorn and ridicule.

  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues--those of us who are truly 
committed to restoring the public's confidence in this institution--to 
vote support this rule, but in doing so, I must urge a ``no'' vote on 
the Boston proposition. Mr. Speaker, this institution is not held in 
particularly high regard by the American people, especially at this 
moment when we are grappling with this budget impasse. I fear that in 
spite of our good intentions, and those intentions are bipartisan--this 
rule will force us into a box and our resulting actions will be seen as 
just more serious business as usual here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules as 
well as a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, who 
has probably more expertise on these matters than any Member I know.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Goss] be permitted to manage the remainder of the bill with me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for his 
confidence. Fortunately, we have staff here who really do know what the 
Rules of the House are that can help us out, in case I go off track.
  I think more important, since we are talking about the rule at this 
point in the debate, I think it is critical to note that today we are 
fulfilling a commitment that was made to the House and to the American 
people that we would debate and vote on the new gift rules for our 
membership by November 16.

                              {time}  1445

  For those like this Member who may have lost track of the days and 
nights in the midst of all the budget discussions and so forth in the 
past few days, it just so happens that today is November 16. Promises 
made, promises kept. I congratulate our leadership for doing that.
  I commend the many Members who have worked to bring us to this point, 
most notably my colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman 
from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz]. She has persevered under extraordinarily 
difficult circumstances, and we owe her our thanks. Likewise, I must 
commend and thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my 
chairman, for his hard work and eminent fairness in handling this 
issue. It has not been easy.
  Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson once said, ``When a man assumes the 
public trust, he should consider himself as public property.''
  Many Americans subscribe to that philosophy, I among them, and it is 
for that reason that I support efforts to strengthen and expand our 
current gift rules. I quickly say that I realize that how you deal with 
the problem of gifts is a very personal decision for all Members, and I 
totally respect the rights of how they go about doing it.
  Therefore, I think we have come up with a pretty good rule because we 
have tried to provide for a number of options, hopefully finding a 
comfortable home for each of the Members' personal preferences that 
still passes muster with the idea that we are being asked to explore 
gift reform by the American people.
  I believe that most of the Members and staff who work long hours in 
this Capitol are very honorable and very deserving of the public's 
confidence. However, I also know from the polls, just general street 
talk, that the public does not always have great confidence in us, in 
part because they believe perhaps that we enjoy too many perks and 
privileges, many of them provided by people who seek special access.
  For this reason, since my early days in Congress, my policy for 
myself and my own office staff has been not to accept any gifts, meals, 
or travel. Although this policy is personal to me, and it is certainly 
more stringent than any of the reform versions we are taking under 
consideration today, I find it has proven to be relatively easy to 
implement and precluded a lot of difficult decisions that frankly would 
have been in gray areas that might have raised people's concerns. I 
know other Members who have practiced the same policy generally agree 
with those conclusions. Regardless of what we do today, I personally 
will continue my policy.
  Now, gift reform for the entire House, however, is important even if 
most of the Members adopt their own stringent policies voluntarily. 
Why? The answer is simple. Because a large number of American people 
have asked us to take this extra step. Many feel our low approval 
ratings can be raised only if we do take that kind of a commitment to 
begin to build back trust. I think building back trust is an important 
mission for this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this rule affords Members with 
differing 

[[Page H 13067]]
perspectives on the need and the proper direction of gift reform an 
opportunity to be heard and issue their debate and their arguments and 
their persuasion on the approach that they think is best.
  I know some Members believe strongly that the approach embodied in 
House Resolution 250, which is the one that the other body adopted in 
July, they feel strongly that is the wrong way to go, that will not 
work. Others believe that that approach does not go far enough, that it 
will not restrict Members' and staffers' acceptance of gifts and it 
will not achieve the mission of building credibility.
  So we have the chance to debate these points of view and vote first 
on a bipartisan substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton], a measure that is designed to emphasize disclosure more than 
bans. If that should fail, then we will vote on a proposal offered by 
our Speaker geared toward a more stringent gift ban than the other body 
has adopted. If neither alternative should pass, then we will have a 
vote on House Resolution 250, provisions that are almost identical to 
the other body's, we have cleaned up some of the minor problems in it, 
but it is very similar to that, known as the Waldholtz version.
  This seems to me to be a very fair and proper way to go. I do not 
know how we could have done it better and accommodated more views and 
still brought the matter to the floor. I urge our colleagues' support 
for this rule so we can get on and examine the versions that we have 
offered for us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend on the 
Committee on Rules for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of lobby reform and the rule and the 
gift reform legislation, the Barrett-Shays-Waldholtz bill before us 
now, which merely reflects the gift reform bill of the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bryant] which we have tried to take up since the beginning 
of this year.
  We cannot begin today without a quick recounting of events that have 
occurred over this calendar year. Our consideration of lobby and gift 
reform today characterizes the Republican approach to legislating: take 
bills which enjoy broad bipartisan support, that were passed by the 
Senate unanimously, act only when forced to, and then proceed in a 
partisan manner.
  Democrats have offered four previous occasions to consider lobby and 
gift reforms on the House floor this year, most recently just 3 weeks 
ago during the consideration of the second legislative branch 
appropriations bill. On October 25, that bill was pulled from the 
floor. Why? Because Democrats and reform-minded Republicans had the 
votes to pass the lobby and gift bills we will consider today. Then and 
only then did Majority Leader Armey make a public commitment to 
consider these bills today. Did he then take a bipartisan approach? I 
would argue no.
  The Senate-passed lobby bill was not even referred to the committee 
for 3 months. The lobby reform bill languished at the desk. The 
Subcommittee on the Constitution did not mark up a lobby bill until 
hearings were completed, until given the go-ahead by the GOP 
leadership. The gift reform bill was referred to the partisan Committee 
on Rules instead of the usual referral to the bipartisan Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct. The restrictive rule offered for the 
gift bill today stems from extensive discussions and votes within the 
Republican conference, but no consultation with the Democratic 
leadership ever took place.
  So, at the end of the day, is the product improved? Has more 
bipartisanship on the issue been achieved? Has more bipartisanship on 
the issue been achieved? Has the House earned its traditional 
reputation as the more reform-minded of the two bodies? The events 
speak for themselves.
  At the very least, the GOP leadership tactics have cast a shadow over 
what should have been a straightforward, consensus approach, working 
hand-in-hand as we did in the last Congress to pass this kind of 
legislation.
  Now the situation has been created where our gift reform product may 
fall short of the Senate, or our lobby reform bill may be amended, 
permitting it to bog down in a House-Senate conference committee over 
amendments that have already shown to be unpopular in the other body. 
If either of those things happens today, the blame clearly will lie at 
the feet of the Republican leadership.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the Senate-passed provisions. We should 
have done so a long time ago.
  For my colleagues who want to complicate this issue by saying the 
limits are too low or charity events will be restricted or record-
keeping will be required, I say the American public does not like what 
it sees in Washington, and we need to set a higher standard and work 
toward restoring their trust.
  I say that not because I am holier than thou. I am no different than 
any other Member in this institution. I have engaged in all the 
practices that will be mentioned here today. I am not impugning the 
motives of any of my colleagues. I think this is the cleanest 
legislative body anywhere, and I think it has been cleaner every year I 
have served here.
  There is no question in my mind, however, that we need to bring 
responsibility and accountability to our dealings with lobbyists and 
our relationships with them. That is the point of these bills that have 
been brought to this floor finally today. That point should not be 
obscured by any 11th hour reformers who seek to maintain their own 
notions of business as usual.
  Our mission today is to restore the confidence of the American people 
in this great institution. Whether we like it or not, the perception 
exists that this place is too influenced by too close a relationship 
with those who are paid to influence our decisions.
  I urge my colleagues to accept this very unfair rule, yes, accept it 
anyway, and to defeat the various amendments, and pass the Senate-
passed gift and lobby reform provisions.
  I know this will be a divisive issue, within both the conference of 
the Republicans and the caucus of the Democrats. But I think it is in 
the best tradition of past efforts to reform the institution, and to 
try to build additional public understanding of the relationships we 
invariably must have with interest groups and lobbyists, and at the 
same time reassure each other that our own common standards will be 
such that we can go to the public and ask for them to reinvest their 
trust in us.
  Many of us have different standards. I do not impugn, as I say, the 
motives of any. We all have different perspectives as we evaluate where 
we must be on these issues. But there are other standards that must 
apply to all of us because we are judged often by the actions of a few.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it would have been much easier for me not to have asked 
for the time to speak on this issue, on this subject matter. But I 
think that would have been an act of cowardice for me not to do so.
  I know full well that it is politically more comfortable to vote for 
the most extreme measure pending before us on that subject. But I think 
that does to this body an enormous disservice. Harken to the words of 
the gentleman from California who just spoke, who says this is the 
cleanest institution, legislative body that he knows of and it is 
getting better all the time. Then why are we flagellating ourselves the 
way we are doing it?
  I could stand before you and tout the virtues of the House Resolution 
250 based text that we have before us, but I have looked at it, I have 
studied it, and it is terribly, terribly flawed.
  You should know that what comes to you as the instrument passed by 
the other body was written on the floor of the other body in an ad hoc, 
spontaneous kind of way. If we look at that legislation, it shows all 
the earmarks of the atmosphere in which it was drafted. It is shot full 
of opportunities for entrapment of Members. It calls for Members 
exercising, quote, good faith discretion, which is an invitation for 

[[Page H 13068]]
those who are most conscientious to deny themselves while inviting 
those who are least conscientious to go to the limits of the system. It 
creates the necessity of a recordkeeping that would burden you to the 
point where it would seriously jeopardize your ability to get the work 
done for which you were elected.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1967 when I first decided to run for public office, I 
promised myself and my family that it would be more important why I got 
elected than whether I got elected. I think we should apply that 
standard as we make our judgments in passing the better gift reform 
bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, gift reform is not a 
Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. It is an issue that 
strikes at the very core of the integrity of this institution.
  The greatest honor in my life is serving in this institution. I have 
met some of the greatest people I have ever met in my life, and I think 
virtually every one of those people is dedicated to doing what is right 
for the American people. I think Congress gets a bad rap when people 
think we are not here to help. But I also think it is incumbent upon us 
to do everything we can to make sure the people of this country have 
confidence in this institution. We must have the people in this country 
have confidence in the democratic process. In order to do so, that 
means we are going to have to make some personal sacrifices and I am 
willing to take those sacrifices. That means we are going to have to 
say, ``I am willing to give up golf trips.'' That means we are going to 
have to say, ``I am willing to give up unlimited meals worth $50.'' 
That means I am going to have to say, yes, it is more important for the 
integrity of this institution than it is for me to have frills that 
every one of us wants.
  I am human just like everybody else. I would love to have these 
things. But it is far more important for this institution to have the 
integrity restored in it.

                              {time}  1500

  That is why I think it is important that we are working together 
today on a bipartisan basis. It is important we move forward.
  This is not a perfect bill. You are never going to have a perfect 
bill in this area, but it is, I think, a bill that moves in the right 
direction. It is a bill that deserves the support of every person of 
this institution.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California talked 
about fairness. I know we are talking about gift reform, but there was 
some partisanship put in it.
  In 30 years the Republicans did not win but one motion to recommit 
because the deck was stacked. The king-of-the-hill rule in my first 
years here, we did not win any, because the deck was stacked.
  We are trying to offer three different options. Personally I feel 
that during the time when the Government is shut down, we have got 
appropriations bills to do, we have got 25,000 troops that are looking, 
by the President, to be sent to Bosnia, it is absolutely ludicrous for 
us to be doing this at this particular time.
  Let us take a look. I am going to support the Burton amendment. I 
will also support a zero, no trips, no gift, nothing, de nada, rather 
than partial.
  Let me tell you why. Democrats have got a convention coming up in 
Chicago. Can you imagine when a high school student volunteers time as 
a gift? Can you imagine someone that drives a car or a flower or 
anything? There is no way that the people that put on your convention 
or the people that are involved in it are going to stay out of prison. 
I guarantee you someone is going to question somebody working somewhere 
sometime, and that person is going to end up going to jail. I mean, it 
is absolutely ludicrous.
  I have never been on a trip myself, never once, never taken my 
family. I do not plan on doing it. I would love to go to Mexico where 
we have a lot of problems in common with California. But I have not 
done that.
  I think probably the most thing I have ever received is a T-shirt or 
a golf hat. But individually it does not matter.
  But I think for us to take and do this partially and the 
recordkeeping, you say it is insignificant, but I think, I really 
believe you are going to end up with Members on both sides of this 
thing in jail just because something is not reported. Somebody drops a 
book off, which I have received books, I have no idea what they cost. I 
will log it in. If it comes up over the $10 or $50, like that, somebody 
could bring it up, and we could end up in a lot of trouble.
  I would ask you to support Burton or support zero.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I ask the gentleman from California, who just spoke, if he would 
remain at the microphone, if he would.
  I know that the legislation is complicated and it is hard to keep 
track of all the details when things move around. But the gentleman may 
not have been aware that there is a specific exemption in the bill for 
political activities. Nothing surrounding the political convention 
either of the Democratic Party or of the Republican Party is covered 
under this legislation.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield, then would a charity 
gift at a political event be covered?
  Mr. FROST. All I can tell the gentleman is the restrictions in this 
paragraph shall not apply to the following, and then it says a 
contribution is defined in section 301(a) of the Federal Election 
Campaign Act of 1971 that is lawfully made under the act, the 
contribution for election to a State or local government office 
prescribed by section 301(8) (b) of the act or attendance at a 
fundraising sponsored by a political organization.
  A political convention is obviously sponsored by a political 
organization. The intent is not to cause problems for either the 
Republican Party or the Democrat Party at their national conventions.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have been essentially involved in virtually 
every reform issue this House has faced since I first came, whether 
that issue is limiting outside income or requiring financial disclosure 
or campaign reform or lobbying gift reform. I have not been involved in 
that because I thought that most Members did not have integrity, I have 
been involved in it because I know that they do.
  Yet what we have often seen is that many Members in this place have 
their reputations unjustly besmirched because of the careless or 
thoughtless actions and sometimes the venal actions of a very small 
percentage of the Members of this body. I do not believe that we can 
afford, as an institution or as stewards of the political process, I do 
not believe that we can afford to have a situation continue in which 
taxpayers can turn on their television set and see their local 
Congressman cavorting on a beach with his expenses paid for by 
lobbyists or golfing with his expenses paid for by lobbyists. The 
system cannot afford it. That kind of scene turns this country cynical. 
It robs them of any remaining faith they have left in their political 
institutions.
  We have got to cut off that kind of behavior and that kind of 
activity. That is why I would urge the House, when they take action 
today, to support the committee bill, to oppose the Burton amendment.
  I respect the gentleman's motives. But I do not respect the judgment 
that leads one to conclude that we can afford to continue those kinds 
of relationships. I think that for the good of the country, those kinds 
of relationships must end, and that is the most important lesson which 
I think we have to take out of the debate today.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith], who has been one of the 
principals in bringing this legislation forward.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the 
Members of the Committee on Rules and the House leadership for allowing 
gift reform to come to the floor for a vote.
  I will be supporting the rule, and I will also be supporting the 
substitute 

[[Page H 13069]]
amendment offered by the Speaker and the base bill underlying this 
bill.
  Just know that if you vote for the Burton amendment, you do not ever 
get to real reform. The rule is structured in a way that, if Burton 
passes, you never get the two reform versions, not the total ban and 
not the bipartisan solution that mirrors the Senate solution. You must 
vote ``no'' on Burton first.
  Now, why am I supporting both of the underlying bills? A group of 
freshmen, in a variety of ways, sometimes the same bill, sometimes with 
others, came together in December and made a decision that we would run 
against the perceived perception of this place that it was affected by 
special interests. We ran against incumbents, some of us, saying we 
would be different, we would not go and be affected by those special 
interests and that we had to keep our word, see, because we had run on 
a promise, a contract, and the American people thought that contract 
included going and cleaning up Congress and changing the perception.
  People turn on the TV night after night and see us in warm places 
with friends on golf trips and have the perception everyone is like 
that, and since I have been here, I realize that is an exception. It is 
not the rule.
  The hearts are good here. They are well-intentioned. But the people 
still have little confidence in us.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, vote ``no'' on 
Burton. Burton is introduced by a lot of people with good hearts who 
believe very strongly that these trips are not harmful. But they are 
harmful to our image. Vote ``no'' on Burton and ``yes'' on the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we restore the integrity of 
the House of Representatives by banning gifts to Members of Congress. 
These gifts threaten the bonds of trust that we need in order to govern 
in this body.
  We are here to do the people's business, and we are compensated very 
well for that. We do not need paid vacations, frequent-flier miles or 
free meals to sweeten the deal.
  Most of all, Members of Congress do not need lobbyists' paid golf 
weekends. If Members want to play at Pebble Beach or Augusta, they 
should do it on their own time and on their own tab.
  I am pleased a bipartisan effort is being made to finally ban gifts. 
I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their work 
on this issue. I must register my disappointment that Congress has not 
acted sooner. In fact, Democrats have tried to bring gift ban measures 
to the floor of the House 4 times since the first day of this Congress 
but have been blocked each time.
  The House passed a strong gift ban bill last year with a 3-to-1 
bipartisan majority, only to see that bill blocked in the Senate. This 
year, the Senate passed a gift ban 98 to 0. It is time to make sure 
that the House follows the same strict rules as the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, oppose the Burton 
amendment or any other changes that would weaken the gift ban, create 
loopholes for lobbyists or would impede the momentum that has pushed 
this House toward finally banning unnecessary and harmful gifts.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], my friend and colleague.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, in this House, there are two things you have 
to look at. One is perception, and one is reality.
  I spent 12 years on the Ethics Committee. In fact, I was the ranking 
member for the last 2 years of the Ethics Committee. I remember the Jim 
Wright case well. I remember the case where I was in charge of the 
Republican side on check cashing--109 Members say they lost their 
positions because of that.
  I also took the time to go back and look at every case that has ever 
happened since the beginning of Congress on what we have tried in front 
of the Ethics Committee; somebody hit somebody with a cane, they went 
outside here and dueled, they spit on each other, they did all kinds of 
interesting things. But, you know, to this day, whatever the perception 
is, the reality is there has never been a case before the Ethics 
Committee because of an honoraria or a gift, never been there.
  When I was first here in the early 1980's, we had an interesting 
time. We said we have got to change this around, and we did not get 
around to it, however, but in 1989 we did. People, like the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Meyers] sitting there, the distinguished gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and others, all of us spent hundreds of hours 
trying to come up with some rules. We got them done. We did away with 
honoraria. We did away with a lot of things.
  Then what happened? We had people come to the floor and say, ``We 
finally did it. We have got it done. We will pacify the American 
public. They will be happy with this.'' That was not done behind closed 
doors. That was done in the open, for everybody to see. All the papers 
said, ``Gee, they finally did it.''
  Let me just ask the question: How many in here know what we did in 
1989? I do not think very many people do. One. Thank you. I appreciate 
the gentleman from Texas.
  Most of the people, though, it is just like saying what is 
wilderness. Nobody can define that. So we get down to the idea of what 
have we got; really, why do you not take it and read it before you vote 
on it? Why do you not find out what we have got before we talk about 
something else?
  There are a lot of ways to skin this cat.
  I personally feel we should leave it as it is and say to the American 
public, ``Why do you not go read what we did in 1989? I think you will 
feel we did a good thing and a good thing for America.''
  I urge the Members to just let this one go. I am proud of the work 
that we did in 1989. I see no reason to change it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I rise 
in strong support of this bipartisan effort to reform the rules of the 
House with respect to gifts.
  I, too, will be supporting Speaker Gingrich's substitute for no 
gifts. I wish he had treated lobbyists differently than the Girl 
Scouts, but so be it. I think we are better off with no gifts at all 
than all of the other problems raised by the exemptions.
  I would seriously hope my colleagues would turn down the Burton 
amendment. This effort at disclosure is not real disclosure. But what 
it does is take off all the limits between lobbyists and people with 
unlimited expense accounts and the special access they have to Members 
of Congress at events, whether they are billed for charity or for any 
other. You may disclose under the Burton amendment that you went to 
charity. What you will not disclose is you played with three oil 
executives or three people from the homebuilders or three people from 
the banking industry or from the savings-and-loans. That was not 
chance. That was set up. It was determined ahead of time because that 
is how they attracted those people to give money to the charity was to 
promise them that they could play with the Member of Congress and they 
could spend time with them over a 3-hour, 4-hour, 5-hour period of 
time.

                              {time}  1515

  That will never be disclosed under the Burton resolution. We ought to 
turn that down. Because disclosure, disclosure will not solve the 
problem that we have. The problem that we have is that a group of paid 
people in this town who do very good work on behalf of their clients, 
whether it is on behalf of teachers or utility companies or home 
builders or what have you, they do marvelous work, but because of their 
access to money, because of their access to privilege, they have access 
to Members far beyond what our constituents have to us.
  That is not fair, in an area where we are competing for ideas and 
competing for votes and competing to persuade our colleagues to vote 
one way or another, and that access that is bought by money must be 
ended. The bipartisan bill does that.
  The Speaker's amendment takes it a step further, which I think is 
worthy of all of our support. Our constituents do not want us to 
disclose it, they want us 

[[Page H 13070]]
to stop it, and they want us to stop it now.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as a newcomer in this Congress, my concern 
with many of my Republican colleagues is not that they have tried to 
change the operation of this House too much, but that they have changed 
it too little. And with all due respect to my good friend from Florida, 
I have to say that the Republican leadership really has broken its 
promise to the American people in this regard.
  From day one, when the issue was the relationship between the lobby 
and the Members of this body, they refused to reform. We tried on 
January 4, we tried in May, we tried in June, we tried in September, we 
tried in October, again and again and again. We met a stone wall of 
resistance to doing anything to change those ties that bind Members of 
Congress to the lobby.
  This year, finally, under pressure from the U.S. Senate, where 98 
Members of that Senate voted to reform gift ban, finally it became 
obvious that some reform was going to have to happen. And I salute 
those Members, largely new members of the Republican caucus, who have 
spoken out on this issue, because it is essential that it have 
bipartisan support.
  Yet as recently as this past Sunday on ``Meet the Press,'' Speaker 
Gingrich again spoke out against the version of this bill that passed 
the U.S. Senate. We have a rule today that has been structured to make 
it as tough as possible to pass a real meaningful rule.
  So today we have an opportunity to enact real reform, yet there is 
yet an amendment up here that would provide little more than the 
current system. It is essential that we not contract out the operation 
of this Congress to the lobby, that we rely on the Members of the 
Congress to do it, and not the gifts from the lobby.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and for underlying 
bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, we were sent here to give Americans a 
better life, not to live the good life at the expense of lobbyists. But 
Congress has played games with gift bans for years, grandstanding 
against perks, but quietly preserving them.
  Today we can stop playing games and pass real gift ban reform, either 
the Shays-Barrett gift ban bill, or the Gingrich total ban on gifts, or 
we can keep playing games, especially golf, and pass the Burton 
substitute. We need to vote against the Burton substitute.
  House Resolution 250 is a good, tough gift ban. It limits single 
gifts to $50 and annual gifts to $100. The Burton substitute is not a 
gift ban; it is a gift bonanza. It will continue free round trip 
tickets to charity events; it says a gift under $50 is not really a 
gift. How many Americans would agree with that?
  The only true gift ban bill before us today is the bipartisan Shays-
Barrett bill, or Speaker Gingrich's total ban, but in order to get to 
them, we need to vote for the rule and against the Burton substitute.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and 
of this resolution. It has taken us too long to get to this day.
  What we are doing here today is a straightforward change in the House 
rules to enact a strict ban on gifts to Members from lobbyists and 
other people with a direct interest in legislation. And, you know what? 
It is about time. Ross Perot is absolutely right on this one. The 
system is badly broken and must be fixed today. No more excuses, no 
more delays.
  These two measures, the gift ban and the lobbying disclosure bill, 
are designed to correct basic faults in the system, a system that has 
shaken the confidence of the American people and our ability to do what 
is best for the country, and not what is best for our junketeering 
buddies.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any of my colleagues who can be bought 
off on an important issue by a trip or a dinner. But the American 
people perceive Washington to be nothing more than a swamp of back 
scratching and self-enrichment. Today we can take a step to correct 
that view. We must act here and now to eliminate the potential for 
corruption and eliminate even the appearance of junketeering buddies.
  Mr. Speaker, some in this Chamber have decided to spread myths and 
use scare tactics on this bill. But my colleagues, I do not want you to 
be fooled by the loose talk on this resolution.
  I really am looking forward to the day when this House cannot only do 
what we have to do today, but look forward to the real good government 
reform that the American people want and deserve, which is campaign 
financing reform. That will have to wait until next year. But without 
delay, today, we should defeat the Burton substitute. It kills reform, 
and support the Shays-Waldholtz-Barrett gift ban.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit to you the ``Dear Colleague'' of the gentleman 
from Connecticut, Mr. Chris Shays, the gentlewoman from Utah, Mrs. Enid 
Waldholtz, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tom Barrett, which 
dispels those myths and tells the reality of this bill.


                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 1995.


                 gift ban: myth versus reality, part 2

       Dear Colleague: Many questions have arisen recently during 
     the discussion of gift ban legislation. We want to take this 
     opportunity to dispel some of the ``myths'' you may have 
     heard regarding the resolution.
       Myth. This legislation will result in countless innocent 
     members and staff going to jail for accidentally violating 
     the ban.
       Reality. H. Res. 250 is a rules change, not a law, and 
     therefore could not result in any criminal violations. Just 
     like the system that exists today, violation of the gift 
     rules would be subject to disciplinary action by the 
     Standards Committee.
       Myth. I understand the personal friendship exemption 
     doesn't apply if a gift was paid for with company expenses, 
     or by someone other than my friend. Therefore, I could be in 
     violation even if I don't know that a gift my friend gave me 
     was paid by his company.
       Reality. The rule states a member shouldn't apply the 
     personal friendship exemption if ``to the actual knowledge of 
     the Member, officer, or employee'' someone other than the 
     friend paid for the gift. If you didn't know the gift was not 
     paid for by your friend, you would not be in violation.
       Myth. Sometimes my attorney waives a fee for me, just as 
     she does for other clients. Under the H. Res. 250, I wouldn't 
     be allowed to accept this.
       Reality. The resolution exempts gifts which are ``offered 
     to members of a group or class in which membership is 
     unrelated to congressional employment.'' As long as your 
     lawyer waives other clients' fees, and is not waiving your 
     fee because you are a Member of Congress, you would not be in 
     violation. This is similar to current rules.
       Myth. I understand that personal hospitality is allowed 
     under H.Res. 250, but that the exemption doesn't apply to 
     free lodging at a company-owned resort. If someone invites me 
     to stay at his condo, and I don't know that it's owned by his 
     company, I will be in violation.
       Reality. The limitations on gifts of personal hospitality 
     are the same under H.Res. 250 as they are under current 
     rules. You would not be in violation if you did not know the 
     condo was company-owned.
       Myth. If my friend invites me to go on his boat or use his 
     jet ski, and I don't know that they're owned by his company, 
     I would be in violation of the rule.
       Reality. Again, if you don't know that a gift was paid by a 
     company, you would not be in violation of the rule.
       Myth. If someone gave me four tickets worth $20 each for my 
     family to attend a baseball game, I would not be able to 
     accept them, because the cumulative value of $80 exceeds the 
     $50 limit.
       Reality. The Standards Committee currently applies a 
     ``simultaneous gift rule'' which would continue under H.Res. 
     250. Under this rule, the tickets would each be considered 
     separate gifts and could be accepted as long as each ticket's 
     value did not exceed $50. The total value of all tickets 
     could not exceed $100.
       Myth. Sometimes there's a charity event in my district, 
     such as a 10K run or a tennis tournament, and the fee is 
     waived for me. Under H.Res. 250, I couldn't participate in 
     such events and have the fee waived.
       Reality. This is not true. The resolution allows members to 
     accept free attendance at a charity event, offered by the 
     event's sponsor. You would not be able to accept free airfare 
     to or lodging at a charity event.
       Myth. Under the resolution, a gift to a staff member would 
     count toward the member's limit. 

[[Page H 13071]]

       Reality. A gift to a staff member does not count towards 
     his/her member's limit, it would count toward the staff 
     member's limit.
       Myth. Sometimes I take courses or lessons and the fee is 
     waived. Under H.Res. 250, I won't be able to do this.
       Reality. Training is exempt under H.Res. 250 if such 
     training is in the ``interest of the House''. The Standards 
     Committee could determine if a class is in the interest of 
     the House.
       Myth. Unpaid interns would be banned under the legislation.
       Reality. This is not true. Regulations regarding the 
     service of interns already exist in House rules. H.Res. 250 
     does not affect these rules.
       Myth. Use of government tennis courts and weight rooms 
     would be banned.
       Reality. This is not true, for two main reasons. Under the 
     resolution ``Anything which is paid for by the Federal 
     Government, by a State or local government, or secured by the 
     Government under a Government contract'' is exempt. In 
     addition, opportunities which are ``offered to members of an 
     organization . . .  in which membership is related to 
     congressional employment and similar opportunities are 
     available to large segments of the public through 
     organizations of similar size'' are allowed.
       Myth. I will not be able to take tickets to any game, even 
     if it is a university in my district.
       Reality. If the tickets are worth less than $50 each, they 
     can be accepted. The cost of the tickets would count toward 
     the aggregate $100 annual gift limit.
       Myth. If an unsolicited gift basket comes into my office I 
     will be in violation of the gift ban.
       Reality. Provided the gift basket is worth less than $50, 
     it can be accepted. The cost of the gift basket would count 
     toward the aggregate $100 annual limit. If it is worth more 
     than $50, the resolution states ``if it is not practical to 
     return a gift because it is perishable, the item may, at the 
     discretion of the recipient, be given to an appropriate 
     charity or destroyed.''
       Myth. If the Chamber of Commerce has a lunch, I won't be 
     able to go and interact with my constituents.
       Reality. Food and attendance at a widely-attended event is 
     exempt from the ban.
       Myth. I will never be able to go on a fact-finding trip to 
     gain information that I need to do my job. In addition, my 
     constituents will not be able to invite anyone but me to 
     speak at their events--even if there is another member of 
     Congress who is more knowledgeable on the issue than I am.
       Reality. Travel may be accepted from anyone other than a 
     registered lobbyist, as long as it is specifically related to 
     official business. The travel must be publicly disclosed, and 
     entertainment cannot be paid for unless it is provided to all 
     attendees regardless of Congressional employment. Activities 
     which are substantially recreational in nature cannot be paid 
     for.
       Myth. My staff and I will spend countless hours on 
     paperwork requirements required by this resolution.
       Reality. There are no record-keeping requirements included 
     in H. Res. 250. The only additional requirement is further 
     disclosure on travel.
       I hope this is helpful. If you have any questions, call 
     Allison Clinton (Shays), Bryan George (Barrett), or Linda Toy 
     (Waldholtz).
           Sincerely,
     Christopher Shays,
     Tom Barrett,
     Enid Waldholtz.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan bill. 
Not all lobbying is bad, and not all gifts are given for cynical 
reasons, but there is no denying that members of Congress are getting 
too close to lobbyists, and it is up to us to break up the symbolic 
relationship between legislators and the people hired to influence 
them.
  Many of us were elected promising to change the way Congress does 
business, because the American people are convinced that Members of 
Congress take too many free trips, take too many expensive gifts, and 
have too many free steak dinners.
  I am not so sure they are wrong. Just look at all the political 
wrangling and legislative game playing that has been going on on this 
issue, all in the name of saving free golf trips and greens fees.
  Can you imagine, in the same week that we are closing down the 
Federal Government, we are thinking about voting to open up free trips 
for golf and free trips for greens. Last Congress, my freshman class, 
my Democratic freshman class, led the way of fighting for a gift ban, 
but that died in the U.S. Senate.
  The Republican leadership this year has procrastinated and 
capitulated and delayed long enough. Working in a bipartisan way, we 
have this before the floor today. Four times earlier this year we tried 
to do it through Democratic amendments.
  Now is the time to pass it. In the elections last November, voters 
gave Congress a mandate to change the way Washington does business. It 
is time to stop the political games and start working together to make 
this institution more accountable.
  Vote against the Burton substitute, and let us vote for real reform. 
Let us pass it today.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak on the Burton amendment when it 
comes up. I have listened with great interest today. All of the Members 
of Congress who are so concerned about ethics in this House, I wonder 
if any of them have taken the opportunity to read the law? We are 
talking about a House rule and the law of the United States which says 
that anyone who is in Congress who accepts any gift in return for any 
vote on this floor is subject to imprisonment and removal from office.
  If anyone is so pious and so convinced that there are Members of 
Congress who are taking these bribes, it is their obligation to this 
Congress to name names, to tell us who is doing this. They are doing 
this to get a headline back in their district, and they are getting a 
few, but they are making a tremendous mistake.
  So get headlines back in your district, and then go back and tell 
people who you are talking about. Then bring those names to the 
Attorney General and let us prosecute them.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I really do not want to prosecute anyone. I simply want 
to have the U.S. Congress stand up and do their job, and that is to 
recognize that we are here to do the people's business, and not to be 
the recipient of all the goodies that may come into our office.
  These are honest people here, folks. No one is attempting to 
prosecute law abiding Members of the U.S. Congress. We know however 
debate that the in the national arena has been directed at this House 
improving self-regulation. But this is a simple rule that has a simple 
face value to it, and that is that we should not accept gifts that may 
intrude upon the process of government. It simply prohibited gifts 
except at a certain monetary value. It allows Members to do their job 
on behalf of the American people, but it says that gift taking from 
lobbyists and others is just plain wrong. It is a simple fact, and I 
accept it, and was glad to vote for the rule.
  I would ask my colleagues to join together to ensure that the 
American people will know that this House has cleaned its own self up, 
that this House is prepared to acknowledge the fact that the business 
at hand is to save the taxpayers' dollars, and also to be found to be 
beyond reproach. It is important that we recognize that this is not a 
harsh rule, simply a fair rule. It is a rule that is simply fair, and 
simply acknowledges that we are here to work, and to work hard.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to think about what the image 
has been of this Congress, aside from the fact we have not passed a 
clean continuing resolution that would allow the Government to keep its 
doors open, not for us, but for the American people. It is time now 
then to tell them that we are ready to get down to work and to avoid 
the aspersions that have been cast upon this Congress that we spend our 
time taking gifts and not doing work.
  It a simple rule, it is a simple process. Clean our own act up. This 
Congress can do it. Stop the gift. Let us do it today.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], my friend and colleagues on the 
Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives will take another 
important step toward fulfilling our promise to the American people to 
change the status quo by voting on gift reform legislation.
  Now, this is personally satisfying, Mr. Speaker, because many of us 
in the 

[[Page H 13072]]
sophomore class worked very hard since we arrived to bring about 
meaningful congressional reform, and now we finally have the strength 
of numbers to do it. I commend my colleagues and the new freshman class 
for all the hard work they have done to keep this important issue on 
the front burner, for working with our leadership to bring this to the 
floor this year.
  Mr. Speaker, before I ran for Congress I was a judge, and when I 
decided to run for this seat, I called my mother and told her. And 
there was a long silence on the other end of the phone. And I said, 
``Mother, what do you think?'' and she finally said, ``Deborah, how 
could you leave the bench to go to that sleazy place?''
  Now, this was my own mother. I have since convinced her that things 
are not all that bad, but, unfortunately, I do not believe my mother is 
the only person in America who held this institution in such low 
esteem.
  Now, for too long our constituents have believed that well-funded 
special interest groups have maintained undue influence over the 
legislative process. While I firmly believe that the Members and staff 
of this body conduct the people's business every day with honesty, 
integrity, and with high ethical standards, there is still a 
perception, much like my mother's, that Members' decisionmaking is 
often clouded by acts of generosity extended to them.

                              {time}  1530

  As a result, public confidence in this institution has steadily 
declined and the taxpayers have issued a renewed challenge to make 
Congress more open and accountable. As Members of Congress, we have the 
obligation to respond by setting higher standards for ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and balanced rule. It calls for honest 
debate on three very different proposals to strengthen current gift 
restrictions. Each proposal represents its own priorities and 
represents much hard work and sincere thought and all improve the 
status quo. I urge adoption of this rule and adoption of pursuant 
legislation to reform gift reception in this body.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to then 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
underlying bill and urge Members to support that and vote in opposition 
to the Burton substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to reject the Burton 
substitute and support a complete ban on gifts.
  Since arriving in Congress, I've made it my office policy not to 
accept any gifts from lobbyists or allow any of my staff to do so. 
Earlier this year, I was one of 32 Members who signed a Common Cause 
pledge saying that lobbyists gifts are forbidden in my office.
  Now is the time to turn this voluntary pledge into the mandatory 
House rules for all of us.
  It's important because we need to restore pubic trust in Congress and 
its Members. And there can be no better way to begin this process than 
by giving up lobbyist-provided meals, tickets, vacations, food baskets, 
and golf outings that have come to symbolize what's wrong with 
Washington and the way it operates. These gifts should be flat out 
eliminated.
  Mr. Speaker, the Burton substitute is weak tea when what we need is 
strong medicine. It's time for Congress to give up gifts from lobbyists 
and get back to work for those who pay our salaries--the American 
people. I urge my colleagues to place a complete ban on lobbyist gifts.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who has also been in the 
forefront of this matter.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a debate I have not looked forward to because 
there are such strong feelings. This is kind of an in-house debate. We 
talk one way here and the general public on the outside hears and sees 
something totally different. We do not win friends, but this is a 
debate that we have to have.
  I say we are at the crossroads in this Congress, and I particularly 
speak out to my Republican freshmen. They came as reformers, and 
already some of them are getting sucked up into this place. I believe 
we have to reform gift ban and lobby disclosure, and I believe the time 
is now.
  Mr. Speaker, I salute the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] for 
promising a vote. Little did I realize how many of our conference did 
not want him to do that. My admiration goes out to him, and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], who I call a seasoned veteran 
with a freshman heart, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], for 
the fine work he has done.
  I encourage my colleagues as much as I can to defeat the Burton 
amendment, and I encourage the staff that are watching to wake up their 
Members and have them realize that if Burton passes, reform is dead. 
And tomorrow I know what the headlines will say. They will say this 
Congress is against reform. And if we do support the Burton amendment, 
we are against reform.

  Mr. Speaker, we need to clean up our own House and we need to act 
quickly. I urge Members to oppose the Burton amendment. I urge Members 
to consider the Senate amendment, sponsored by the gentlewoman from 
Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] 
and others. It is a fine sensible proposal.
  We will also have the opportunity to get rid of all gifts, which may 
be Members' decision, and something that we ultimately all may do, but 
we do not get to the Senate proposal, the Barrett proposal, the 
Waldholtz proposal, we do not get to the Speaker's proposal of no gift 
if Burton passes. The Burton amendment keeps things the way they are 
now, except it just discloses how sleazy this place has become.
  I urge my colleagues to wake up and understand what this vote is all 
about. It is about whether we go forward or go backward, and I urge it 
to happen on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, at this point I urge adoption of the rule, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to this rule. It 
is not often that I rise in opposition to a rule, as I have a great 
deal of respect for the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the 
Rules Committee. I rise in opposition to the rule not because I do not 
favor gift reform, but rather, I believe in the need for effective gift 
reform. I have always been a strong advocate for congressional reform 
and believe strongly in the concept of a citizen legislature. If we are 
to achieve these goals we must pass gift reform legislation that is 
truly effective. The gentlelady from Utah has proposed such 
legislation. Unfortunately, if this rule passes, the opportunity to 
vote on this truly historic piece of legislation will be greatly 
limited.
  This rule, as presented, favors the substitute. If we wish to arrive 
at a real solution to the gift reform equation, we must be allowed to 
weigh each measure on its own merits, without the limits of this rule. 
Any limits placed on debate should allow each of these measures to be 
brought to the floor individually. This way, the U.S. House of 
Representatives can begin the process of removing many of the perks 
Congress has enjoyed over the last 40 years.
  I will support the Burton substitute if it is the only piece of gift 
reform legislation brought to the floor, even though I believe House 
Resolution 250, the Congressional Gift Reform Act, to be the strongest 
piece of gift reform legislation presented to date.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, just make a few points I would like to speak to very 
quickly.
  First of all, we are talking about House rules, not criminal statute. 
I say that because there are some who have put out some thoughts that 
there is the potential of going to jail and so forth because of these 
House rules we are talking about. Breaking the law is always possible 
and anybody can go to jail and should if they deserve to, but we are 
talking about the rules of the House here, not about criminal law.
  Second, I would like to point out that volunteers have been brought 
up in some scenarios. They are subject to another rule and not part of 
this legislation today.
  Third, there was talk about a political convention. That is not 
covered, as my friend from Texas has talked about. There is a specific 
exemption from that, and, as we know, we separate our official from our 
campaign functions very carefully and need to continue to do that.
  Fourth, this is a bipartisan event. There are participants from both 
sides of the aisle and many different points 

[[Page H 13073]]
of view involved, not only in the base legislation but in the 
amendments that we will be discussing.
  Fifth, I would like to point out that even though some have cast 
aspersions about GOP's leadership abilities to move this forward, we 
have only been here 10 months and we have it on the floor on the date 
we promised. The others who have been here for 40 years perhaps did not 
come to quite as timely a decision on this. So I think we have done OK.
  Sixth, I would like to point out that on page 12 of the committee 
report, an incorrect reference is made to a restriction on the 
provision of ``free attendance'' at a widely attended event, which does 
not exist in House Resolution 250. For the record, there is no 
restriction on who may provide free attendance at such an event.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 268, I call up 
the resolution (H. Res. 250) to amend the Rules of the House of 
Representatives to provide for gift reform, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the 
amendments printed in House Resolution 250 are adopted.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Frost] each will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to divide our 15 
minutes equally between myself and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton], 7\1/2\ minutes each.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for a similar 
request.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I will yield up to 7\1/2\ minutes to 
opponents of the legislation during this debate. It is not clear as to 
whether the opponents at this portion of the debate will be asking for 
the full 7\1/2\, but if they do, for purposes of control, I will yield 
up to 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 7\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 250 is the long-awaited House Gift 
Reform Act. This new rule would place tight new limits on the types and 
value of gifts that Members, officers, and employees may accept.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that this is a bipartisan 
effort. We have had people on both sides of the aisle championing these 
new limits for several years now.
  That is not to say that our 1989 Ethics Reform Act did not set 
significant new standards for all branches of the Federal Government. 
It did as the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] said. We eliminated the 
honoraria of up to $2,000, that Members used to be able to receive for 
speeches. It outlawed certain types of outside employment for Members, 
officers, and employees--such as working with or being affiliated with 
law firms.
  And it banned certain types of gifts from all persons and not just 
from those having a direct interest in legislation, as was previously 
the case.
  But the resolution before us today continues the ethics reforms we 
enacted back in 1989.
  Moreover, this resolution continues the reform revolution set in 
motion on the opening day of this Congress when we overhauled the rules 
and procedures of this House, eliminated scores of committees and 
subcommittees, and downsized our committee staff by one-third. We 
shrunk the size of this Congress.
  As the chairman of the Rules Committee, and one who has been heavily 
involved in reform efforts since I came to this body, I pledged that 
January 4, 1995, was just the beginning, that reform was an ongoing and 
dynamic process, and that we would continue to reform this institution 
as long as we were in the majority, and we are doing that today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have continued with the reform 
initiatives that we set in motion on opening day. This gift rule reform 
resolution is just the latest chapter in that ongoing effort.
  I especially want to commend the freshmen Members, like the author of 
this resolution, the gentlewoman from Utah, Mrs. Waldholtz, an 
outstanding member of this body, the gentlewoman from Washington, Mrs. 
Linda Smith, the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Sam Brownback, and 
especially the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chris Shays, and a whole 
host of others.
  The people wanted a new Congress with new priorities and a new 
agenda. And they wanted a Congress that was willing to literally clean 
its own House.
  Notwithstanding the great strides we have made in meeting the demands 
and expectations of the electorate, there is still a great skepticism 
and distrust around the country about this Government, and we have to 
do something about that.
  Unfortunately, that public distrust extends to every branch of 
government, including the Congress. It is not because we have failed, 
or because this body is filled with dishonest Members. That is 
certainly not the case. This House is filled with the most honest, 
bright, and hardworking Members in the history of the Republic.
  Notwithstanding that, the people are still skeptical, suspicious, 
even distrustful of public officials. It is a legacy of the past, and 
nothing new in our history. The people have seen too many empty 
promises, too much business as usual, and they want results--sometimes 
sooner or greater than a democracy can deliver.
  Overriding all this is the age-old suspicion that politicians are 
only out for themselves, are too influenced by special interests, and 
are too little concerned with the interests of the people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that this 104th Congress is keeping 
its promises of the last election. We are about to deliver on the most 
important of those promises--something all the people want--and that is 
to balance the budget.
  But, until we complete action on that, and the other legislation that 
we have already passed in this House, there remains that public 
skepticism and distrust. Do we really mean what we say? Will we really 
see it all through?
  The resolution before us is part and parcel of our congressional 
reform efforts to dispel those public misperceptions that we are 
somehow not here to do the people's business, and are somehow beholden 
to those who supposedly lavish us with gifts.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues know that is not the case. They know that 
they will not be returning to this House in the next Congress if they 
do not put the people first, and carry out the people's mandate and 
expectations.
  So this resolution that significantly tightens up on the House gift 
and disclosure rules, is not a great sacrifice, because it does not 
involve any major alteration in our behavior. We do not have to make 
any significant changes in our behavior or conduct, because most 
Members do not now take or accept the kind of gifts this rule would 
prohibit.
  But I am convinced that by adopting tighter gift rules and 
restrictions we will help to convince the people that we are not being 
unduly influenced by gifts or meals or trips or what have you. Our 
greatest gift is the continuing trust and support of the people and the 
privilege they have bestowed upon us to represent them and their 
interests in the people's House.
  Let's give them a gift in return, and that is this small but 
significant step to help restore the trust of the people in their 
Representatives. That is not asking too much. It is the least we can 
do. Let's pass this gift rule and demonstrate that we are indeed worthy 
of the trust and responsibility the people have placed in us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 250. The 
reform of the gift rules for House Members and staff is a bipartisan 
issue and one that 

[[Page H 13074]]
has been supported for many years by Members of all political stripes 
and by many citizen organizations. We have, in years past, made 
significant changes in our rules, but in spite of those reforms, many 
Members have recognized that there is still a need to continue to 
change how this institution does business.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very gratified that the persistence of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has finally paid off. His untiring 
efforts to bring this issue to the full House, along with the efforts 
of a broad bipartisan coalition of freshman and other junior Members, 
demonstrates that this issue does not belong to any one political 
party. My Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. 
Waldholtz], is to be congratulated for shepherding this issue through 
the Rules Committee and to the floor today. I also want to thank my 
friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], for his steadfast 
support for bringing this issue to the full House.
  And now that the House has finally come to the moment in which it can 
demonstrate its commitment to reform, I want to urge all of us to think 
carefully about how we are going to vote today. If, as we all know, 
there are those in the public who will never be satisfied with what we 
do here, there are also other Americans who understand that the men and 
women elected to this institution are honorable and that we are trying 
to do the right thing. We are here because we want to give something 
back to this great Nation which has given each and every one of us so 
much.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has three choices today: First, a substitute 
will be offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. His 
proposal would leave the current gift rules in place but would require 
extensive disclosure of any gifts received or any trips taken by 
Members or their staff. Mr. Burton's proposal, if I understand it 
correctly, would impose new disclosure requirements which will allow 
our constituents to decide if we are unduly influenced by lobbyists and 
other special interests. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Burton's heart 
is in the right place, but that his substitute simply does not get the 
job done. I would urge a no vote on this proposition.
  The second proposition may be offered by Speaker Gingrich if the 
Burton substitute does not pass. The Speaker's proposal would zero out 
accepting gifts. His proposal does, however, contain a number of 
exceptions which may or may not address the issue of how to deal with 
small, inexpensive gifts from constituents or other groups.
  That proposal is, of course, the proposition reported by the 
Committee on Rules and which is sponsored by a broad bipartisan 
coalition. This amendment to the rules of the House reduces the 
allowable amount of accumulated gifts from any one source from $250 to 
$100 per year, and prohibits the acceptance of any gift with a value 
exceeding $50. With certain exceptions, lobbyists are prohibited from 
giving gifts to Members and staff. But most importantly, this new rule 
would specifically bar Members from accepting reimbursement for 
transportation and lodging costs associated with their attendance at 
charity golf, tennis, and ski tournaments.
  This prohibition directly addresses the lifestyle issue which has 
caused this institution so much unneeded and unwarranted grief. This 
prohibition is key to the gift rule reform effort.
  The proposal reported by the Rules Committee is not perfect, but it 
is a significant improvement on the current rule. I urge my colleagues 
to support the bipartisan proposal reported from the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
allowing me to weigh in on a very important topic.
  Mr. Speaker, the sound of hands beating against chests today is just 
deafening. We have before us now something that everybody can beat 
their chests and say that we cleaning up the cesspool, we are cleaning 
up the sleaze.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the other Members here, but in the 
11 months that I have been here I have had a parade of constituents 
through my offices that are church people, that are members of Little 
League teams, that are members of Chambers of Commerce, that are 
members of small and large businesses in my district, and elsewhere in 
the country, environmental groups, that have an absolute right. They 
want to come in and see me. They are not coming in with bags of cash. I 
do not know who my colleagues are hanging out with, those who talk 
about sleaze and sewers, maybe they are hanging out with a different 
class of people than I do coming up here from my district in Georgia.
  The legislation that we are talking about here today does not address 
those fundamental issues that we have already addressed that are 
already addressed in the criminal laws and the ethical regulations in 
this House.
  What we are talking about today is beating our chests and making the 
public think we are really changing something, when all we are doing is 
preventing people from coming into our office that may have a baseball 
cap to show us that they want displayed, because they are proud of 
something they have done. Now, we have to virtually subject those 
people to a pat-down search before we allow those people into our 
office under House Resolution 250 or under the Speaker's legislation, 
and ask them for a receipt.
  One of our staff people cannot go out to dinner, to find some time 
because they do not have time during the day. They are doing the 
people's business. They could not go out and have a meal with some 
folks back home. What we are doing is cutting off our nose to spite our 
face. We are diverting attention from real issues here. What we are 
going to end up with is a god-awful piece of legislation that is a 
lawyer's dream.
  Mr. Speaker, I have sat here just trying to focus on one bit of a 
discussion earlier when we were talking about this rule on whether or 
not attendance at a political convention is or is not exempted under 
here. In the space of 2 minutes, we can look through House Resolution 
250 and find four different places where it may or may not be covered.

  It is a nightmare. Do not pass nightmares, despite the fact that we 
can beat our chests and make people feel good. The Burton substitute is 
very proper.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, this is general debate and I will speak 
again at the time of the introduction of the Burton-Brewster-Clay-
Abercrombie amendment, the full disclosure amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker just mentioned about beating on 
chests, and I agree with him entirely. I did not come into this 
institution as the last person to be sworn in by Tip O'Neill before he 
retired to have people stand here in the well of the House and say that 
there is only the ``appearance of integrity;'' that it is not an honor 
and a privilege to serve in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues if there is a perception out 
in the country that there are less than honorable people here, it is 
created by individuals. We cannot account for everybody who comes in 
here, but the voters see to it whether or not they want those folks to 
come back in here.
  There is nothing in this bill presently before us that provides what 
our full disclosure amendment provides. As a matter of fact, there is 
no disclosure provision. I would like to know, all those who have come 
down here and talked about appearance, restoring integrity, the 
perception; that it is more important to attack the perception of the 
House, more important to attack that.

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to know all of those who have stood down 
here so self-righteously proclaiming that they, of course, are ready to 
assume the mantle of probity; they would not be guilty, not even the 
odor of mendacity is about their persons.
  But for the rest of us, for the rest of us, no disclosure? I would 
like to know whether any of those Members have 

[[Page H 13075]]
taken any money from any source that they now stand here and say they 
will take no money from in the form of a meal. How about a campaign 
contribution? I would like to see now many people who are standing down 
here saying, ``Not me, I would not take a meal or anything from a 
lobbyist.'' They would not? Mr. Speaker, then they should come down 
here and let me see what their campaign contribution form looks like.
  Now, far be it from me that there is anything wrong with that, but 
what we are really talking about here is campaign reform, campaign 
financing. If that is what my colleagues want to attack, attack that.
  There is an exception. There is an exception for campaign activities, 
as was pointed out by the previous speaker. Will somebody please 
explain to me how we are going to have an exemption for campaign 
activities, but at the same time say that we are actually passing a 
gift rule?
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the motivation of someone trying to say 
that they are cleaning the place up. Yet, every single Member who said 
that also remarked that they were fully believing that the integrity of 
the House was intact; it was merely the perception that the House does 
not have that integrity which was in question.
  If that is the case, let us be honest. If there is a Member in here 
that is a thief and a crook, then stand up and say so. That is what we 
have a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for and a Justice 
Department for.
  Mr. Speaker, I say let us have full disclosure, just as we do with 
our Federal election campaign reports. That amendment will be before 
Members. Then my colleagues can go back to their constituents and say 
to them, ``Yes, you can examine my record, you can examine what I did, 
and you make a judgment as to whether I am worthy to be in this 
House.''
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say for those of us who have 
not worked as hard as others have on this issue, we compliment the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] on his work. A lot of people put a 
lot of dedicated time into this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we have to meet three tests if we are going to 
have an adequate disclosure and gift reform. One is it has to be clear. 
I think gray areas are the worst enemy of everybody. That is what 
causes problems.
  Second, it has to be easy to administer. We get to the point in some 
of the proposals where the recordkeeping itself is going to be the 
issue.
  Third, I think it has to meet the commonsense test. I think that the 
record has been, at least with respect to charities and charitable 
events, that Members of Congress attending as, whether we call them 
bait or celebrities or whatever to raise money and to raise help for 
cancer research, for heart research, and for other good charities, is a 
good thing; something we should promote and not deny.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the Burton proposal meets the clarity test, 
the easy-to-administer test, and the commonsense test. That is what I 
am going to support.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is the third year that we have 
spent in this House dealing with this issue. We passed it in the last 
Congress and we passed the conference report. The Senate did the same. 
As many know, it was filibustered to death in the Senate at the very 
end. Earlier this year the Senate voted by a margin of 98 to 0 to enact 
the bill that is before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, many, many Members of this House and many, many Members 
of the other House have worked extremely hard to find a way to put 
together exactly the kind of bill that the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter] was just describing. One that made sense; one that was 
reasonable; one that we could live with and work with; but one at the 
same time that would assure the public that Members of this House were 
not making decisions on laws based upon their social contacts and the 
free things which they receive from lobbyists, the very people who are 
hired to influence our decisions.
  There is adequate reason for them to be worried about that. If my 
colleagues turn on any of these television magazine shows any given 
night of the week, they are likely to see a sordid picture of Members 
of Congress all decked out in their golf regalia playing golf at some 
tropical clime for free, accompanied by lobbyists and representatives 
of some of the biggest and most powerful companies in this country.

  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie] I do not believe this place has crooks in it. I do not 
believe this place deserves what it has been frequently called by its 
own Speaker, and that is to say the adjective ``corrupt.'' It is not, 
and I do not believe that it has been in the time that I have been 
here. But people are given that impression when Members cross the line 
and spend that much time with lobbyists.
  Mr. Speaker, all we have done with this bill is say there is going to 
be a $50 limit. Members are not going to be able to get free meals 
every night of the week from the same guy and they cannot fly across 
country for the purpose of playing golf.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] 
about this. He sincerely believes that the role of Members in these 
charity golf tournaments is a public good and ought not to be curtailed 
in any way, but the price of that is the confidence of the public in 
this institution.
  The fact of the matter is that when Members go to these charity golf 
tournaments, there is no secret who is playing golf with them, who is 
in their foursome, who is spending time with them. It is somebody who 
wants to be able to influence their decisions in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, the public wants us to do away with this. The fact of 
the matter is that a minor inconvenience for some people, and no 
inconvenience for the majority of us, is all that will result from 
passing this bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge Members to go ahead and get rid of this 
last gasp of reactionary talk about the ability of Members to do free 
things around this institution and around this country. Let us go ahead 
and pass this bill today and vote against the Burton amendment and let 
us finish this issue once and for all.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the Burton amendment is not the end of 
the world, but the truth is the perception is that it is the end of the 
world and Members do not want to explain votes around here.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] was 
right on target. If Members are selling their vote for a luncheon, they 
are subject to a bribe arrest, thrown out of Congress, and going to 
jail.
  But the bottom line is after it is all over and after we cannibalize 
Congress once again, the truth and the reality is we will ban gifts, 
but the same lobbyists who cannot take Members to lunch can give them 
$5,000 in the primary, $5,000 in the general, and that is not going to 
be changed, because that will question the fabric of a free 
participatory democracy.
  Full disclosure is not all bad, and I will deal with the perception. 
But I took this time because in the companion bill where we are talking 
about lobbying, foreign interests lobby the Congress. In this next bill 
I have an amendment that sets stricter guidelines and standards and 
makes sure they have to register so we know who they are.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been trying for 4 years to get it out, and 
everybody says, ``We are for it, but not this time, Jim.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this cannibalization, but I 
believe the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] is right. We have an 
awful lot of laws and maybe they ought to be enforced and Congress 
should stop cannibalizing themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, a Congress that must cannibalize itself must be 
perceived by 

[[Page H 13076]]
the Nation as a Congress that might just cannibalize them at some 
point.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], my good colleague.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Burton substitute. 
Those of us who have been criticized for going to events whether they 
are charity balls or dinners or golf events or tennis events, whatever 
it is, on behalf of charity I think have really taken a bum rap. When 
you talk about perception, the perception is not reality.
  I remember one of the events I had an opportunity several years ago 
to participate in out in Idaho was the charity event where we raised 
money for cancer research. Those of you who are worried that I was 
going to be playing with some well-heeled lobbyist, I ended up playing 
with the head of the Mormon Church. I can say with all honesty that, 
while it was a wonderful experience, he had very little influence over 
me other than perhaps some of my language, if I might have missed a 
put.
  The fact is that this effort by the Members is a very honorable one. 
The gentleman from Indiana, gentleman from Oklahoma, others have 
participated in these events. I am proud of it. I am proud of the fact 
that I have had an opportunity to help raise money for charity. I see 
nothing wrong with it as long as you report it.
  The gentleman's efforts to tighten the disclosure and the 
requirements are perfectly applicable. I do not think anybody should 
take advantage of this. Understand all of these are reportable. All of 
these rate public scrutiny, and ultimately our responsibility is to the 
people who elect us. Those are the people who really count.
  That is really what it is all about. That is full disclosure under 
the Burton approach and allow us then to go and explain it to our 
constituents. Those are the people that elect us. We are not 
responsible to other members. We are not responsible to the media. We 
are responsible to people who sent us here. That is what the Burton 
proposal does. It is full disclosure, gives us an opportunity to 
represent our constituents the way we think they ought to be 
represented. If they think that we are representing them well, they 
will return us to office. If they are offended by that, they will kick 
us out.
  Support the Burton amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 4 minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], my dear friend and colleague.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, we are faced today with three 
alternatives. One, we can accept the current bill. No. 2, we can accept 
the Burton amendment that he is going to offer. Or No. 3 we can accept 
the Gingrich amendment which will follow the Burton amendment, if it 
fails, and have zero gifts; maybe that is best.
  I stood here and I challenged those of my colleagues that are so 
passionate in their belief that we are a bunch of corrupt individuals, 
that it is your constitutional authority to name names. And if you know 
of anyone who is selling his vote on the floor of this House for a golf 
game or for a meal or for anything else, it is your constitutional 
obligation to notify the Attorney General and incarcerate and make this 
Member who is violating the law be evicted from this House as the law 
so states.
  So our options, as I see it today, a classical example of--a neighbor 
of mine, Dr. Les Grier, called me last weekend and he said: ``Sonny, 
the Lions Club is having a membership drive. We would like to have you 
as a member because you are a Member of Congress, and we think we will 
be able to attract other members.''
  I said: ``Les, I am never there during the week. I cannot come to the 
meetings. I cannot afford to pay the $400 a year because I am never 
there to eat the meals.'' He said` ``For you we will waive the annual 
fees.''
  So under this provision, I could not even join the Kiwanis Club as an 
honorary member. That, my friends, is wrong. At least under the Burton 
bill we would be able to accept these types of activities in our home 
districts. We would still have to disclose them, as the Burton bill 
requires, but at least we would not be convicted by an accusation by 
some opponent or by some individual who might dislike us for any 
reason.
  So I encourage Members today to think what they are doing. Accept the 
Burton amendment as the best alternative to the three alternatives we 
are facing here today. Remember that this is a rule of the House that 
the law of the land requires us, as a member of Congress, not to sell 
our votes. And regardless of all of these innuendoes and regardless of 
all of these individuals in this House who are doing this for a 
headline back at home, it is absolutely wrong.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Americans seek genuine reform of this 
Congress, not another sop or flop. They certainly seek more than the 
change of a number, which is little more than the substitute provides 
to change the level at which disclosure must occur. The problem with 
disclosure, among others, is that too often the beneficiaries of 
largess receive so many gifts they have trouble keeping track of all of 
them. I think of one leader in this body who disclosed his custom-made 
ostrich boots, but until he was asked by a reporter, he forget that he 
had a cruise to the Bahamas as well.
  Americans do not need to count the number of gifts that people 
receive and read about more gift through disclosure, about the level of 
benevolence of the lobby to the Congress. What they want to read is 
that this practice has stopped.
  I have the utmost respect for my colleague from Hawaii, and he is 
right that dealing with gifts is only part of the problem. We need to 
deal with campaign finance reform as well.
  My colleagues remember that it was in June that Speaker Gingrich and 
President Clinton shook hands on genuine reform, bipartisan reform, up 
in New Hampshire. It took from June until November for Speaker Gingrich 
to answer that handshake, and his proposal was the appointment of a new 
stall commission to stall any reform on campaign finance until next 
year.
  Do not let the need for one reform get in the way of another reform. 
Let us do what is right and pass some kind of genuine reform of the 
lobby and gift laws that the U.S. Senate did on an unanimous and 
bipartisan basis.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I just very briefly want to 
address several issues that were raised on this side, one dealing with 
the Lions or the Kiwanis. There is nothing in this bill that is going 
to prevent someone from going to Lions or Kiwanis events in their 
district. There are Members talking about criminal law coming into 
effect. That does not come into effect at all in this bill.
  This bill deals with the House rules. There are no criminal sanctions 
contained in this legislation whatsoever. So I think it is important 
that we keep the debate on what is really going on here. That is 
whether or not we should be banning these gifts altogether. No criminal 
sanctions, you can still go to the Kiwanis breakfasts.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests during this 
portion of the debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln once said

       With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing 
     can succeed.

  History has proven this to be true time and again.

[[Page H 13077]]

  And that is why restoring the public's faith in this institution must 
be a top priority. After all, if the people we work for do not believe 
in us they will not believe in the decisions we make. Despite the fact 
that almost every individual Member and staffer are honorable--people 
do not think very highly of us collectively.
  Many think we have been out of touch, living in a different sort of 
world than they face everyday; the kind of world where gifts and meals 
and vacations are paid for by someone else. And because of that, they 
do not have confidence that the decisions we make are always in their 
best interests.
  This is a major problem for us, especially at a time when we are 
seeking to make the tough choices needed to balance our budget.
  Public support is crucial to the success of our mission--and in my 
view, responsible gift reform is crucial to that public support.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Rules Committee and the Ethics 
Committee, it has been my chore to learn the details behind the 
principles at issue in this debate. I have studied current rules, the 
provisions of House Resolution 250, and the provisions of the 
alternative proposals we face.
  I have listened to question and comments by dozens of our Members--in 
public hearings before the Rules Committee, and in one-on-one 
discussions. I know Members want to do the right thing--and they do 
have legitimate concern that we develop rules that make sense, that are 
understandable and effective and will not trip Members up even as they 
try to comply. In my view, the type of approach our Speaker may bring 
forward later today--involving a total ban on gifts--is the cleanest 
and best way to go toward accomplishing those goals. But I also believe 
that we could make major progress if we adopt House Resolution 250 as 
reported by our Rules Committee. Even though this measure has some 
problems, it does accomplish significant change. It gets a handle on 
most gifts and meals provided to Members and staff by imposing new 
limits. It provides for greatly expanded and more timely disclosure on 
travel. And it creates new restrictions on the actions of registered 
lobbyists.

  These are all positive--and I think workable--provisions. I think 
they deserve support by this House. Our consitutents have asked for 
such improvements.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend Dan Burton, that I 
understand the concerns he has raised and I respect the effort he has 
made in crafting an alterantive to House Resolution 250. He has some 
solid ideas, but in my view his alternative is not sufficient to meet 
the necessity we face.
  I worry that Americans will see the $50 threshold as too high and the 
allowance of travel to recreational charity events as too generous.
  As I have throughout this process, I intend to listen carefully to 
the debate--we have a series of choices: if Burton is too relaxed or 
has image problems then vote ``no'' and consider Speaker Gingrich's 
full ban on gifts--if that's too tough then Waldholtz is middle ground. 
I'll vote ``no'' on Burton ``yes'' on Gingrich because I believe that 
is where America is and I believe that is where we should be, too.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, recent days the new House majority has shown a 
distinct lack of bipartisanship.
  However, today, the Republicans are waking up to the need for reform 
and are offering legislation to ban gifts to Members of Congress. I 
urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting both House 
Resolution 250 and the Gingrich amendment which will send a strong 
signal to our constituents that we don't want gifts, we don't need 
them, and, most importantly, that this House is not for sale.
  Regrettably, there are those in this House who do not want reform. 
They want to continue the practices of the past. The want all Members 
to be tainted by their need to get free travel and lodging at golf, 
tennis, and sking charity events. They would have us believe that 
Members of Congress somehow deserve different treatment than the 
average American--this is just plain wrong--and I urge my colleagues to 
reject it.
  Today's vote is long overdue, but there are other reform efforts that 
need to be acted upon, particularly campaign finance reform.
  Last year, I voted for a campaign finance reform bill, supported by 
Common Cause, which would have set spending limits and reduced the 
influence of special interests in political campaigns. This bill never 
made it to the President, but I am hopeful that we can work together in 
a bipartisan manner to develop a fair campaign finance reform plan this 
year. We need campaign finance reform if we truly care about changing 
the nature of politics and encouraging Americans to stay involved in 
the system.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support true gift ban 
legislation, and I look forward to passing a campaign finance reform 
bill. Thank you.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Speaker Gingrich's 
substitute to H. Res. 250, the gift ban legislation. The Speaker's 
substitute is the only version that would ban all gifts.
  This is a tough issue. There is no easy way to monitor or regulate 
items that we as Members of Congress receive for free.
  Once you start down the path of regulating these gifts, which we 
already have under current law, it gets messy. We must then ask 
ourselves: Was the gift under ten dollars? Did I report it in a timely 
manner? Was he or she a lobbyist?
  If we've decided it's important to go down this path, I just think 
it's easier, simpler and safer to establish as a general rule that all 
gifts should be turned down--there are fewer pitfalls to this path. 
However, you need two exceptions to make it workable. One, a common 
sense friends and family exception is necessary. Two, we need a widely 
attended gathering exception to allow us to attend receptions and 
accept meals, for example at Rotary speeches and political events.
  These exceptions are in this amendment. Even with the common sense 
exceptions, some wonder whether this path is workable. I think the 
bright line test is as workable as any other set of rules, and again, 
is easier and safer to comply with.
  I lived under these rules in the Bush White House, where I had the 
unenviable job of enforcing them, and here in my own Congressional 
office. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as the best way 
to demonstrate that real reform has come to this House.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a servant of the people of the 18th 
Congressional District of Texas, I strongly support both House 
Resolution 250 which was sponsored by Congresswoman Waldholtz as well 
as the amendment offered by Speaker Gingrich. For many years now, 
Congress has suffered under the perception by the American public that 
its Members can be influenced and swayed by gifts from lobbyists and 
special interest groups. While many Members hold themselves to strict 
codes of conduct regarding gifts, this bill is an opportunity to 
strengthen rules which would put to rest all suspicions about the 
behavior and integrity of all Members.
  This bill simply applies good, common-sense rules to the issue. It 
sets reasonable limits and conditions, as representatives of the 
people, must accept. Alarmist cries have been raised by some of my 
colleagues during this debate and I do not agree with, nor do I think 
they can justify their roars of outrage.
  This bill limits to $100 the total annual gift contribution from any 
one source. It also allows the attendance for members at conferences, 
dinners or receptions which are appropriate to our duties. To address 
the matter of charitable activities, may I remind my colleagues that 
our participation in charity functions are explicitly allowed, but not 
transportation or lodging. That is responsive to the American people's 
sense of what our real job is here to work for them.
  May I remind those in opposition of this bill that this is indeed a 
truly bipartisan effort with both sides of the aisle coming together to 
support this legislation. I cannot believe that what this piece of 
legislation proposes would not be good for this institution.
  Gift reform is something that is long overdue in this legislative 
body and I believe that it is now time to put to rest all issues 
regarding the public trust. That trust is the very basis of both our 
Government and our society. Without the trust of those we represent, we 
have legitimacy and no Government.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Congressional Gift Reform Act. This important resolution would apply 
more stringent limitations on gifts, meals, entertainment, and travel 
Members of the House of Representatives and their staff would be 
permitted to receive.
  Americans have long asked Congress to clean itself up and this is an 
opportunity for us to do just that. As elected Representatives, we have 
a moral duty to represent our constituents as honorably as possible. It 
is time to finally put the interests of our Nation and its people ahead 
of those in Washington with deep pockets.
  Current House rules allow Members and staff to receive gifts up to 
$250 from a single source each year excluding gifts worth less than 
$100 and all meals. I believe this is unacceptable. Under today's 
resolution, Members 

[[Page H 13078]]
of Congress and staff could not receive a total of $100 in gifts from 
any one source nor could they accept a single gift or meal with a cost 
exceeding $50. In addition, the measure bans lobbyists from paying for 
any travel, regardless of whether it is related to official duties or 
recreation. While the resolution is not a complete ban on the 
acceptance of gifts, which I have long supported, I believe it is a 
strong step in the right direction.
  However, during consideration of this resolution, we may have the 
opportunity to vote on an amendment to completely ban gifts and meals. 
I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure, 
because I believe it would truly reduce the amount of influence 
lobbyists and special interests have on the legislative process.
  Because I support true gift reform, I rise in opposition to the 
Burton amendment, because it leaves the status quo. It is simply an 
attempt to gut a bipartisan effort to enact effective gift reform. 
Under this amendment, Members would still be able to accept $250 in 
gifts a year and accept free travel and lodging to certain charity 
events.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing this very bipartisan effort to be 
considered today. I believe our action on this measure will demonstrate 
to the American people Congress' sincere effort to reduce the influence 
of special interests and lobbyists on Capitol Hill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, the Wall Street Journal recently reported 
that more than 70 percent of U.S. voters said they couldn't usually 
trust the government to do the right thing. This is a serious problem. 
One of the foundations of representative democracy is citizens trusting 
and having confidence in their elected officials. When trust and 
confidence dissipates, democracy cannot thrive.
  We have an obligation to try and regain the public's trust. This may 
not be easy, as public figures are scrutinized more carefully in this 
media age than ever before in our Nation's history. But we must make 
every effort to conduct ourselves in a way that is above reproach or 
suspicion. We must systematically and methodically modify our behavior 
and our institution in ways that reassure the American people.
  One of the most obvious ways to strengthen our institution is to 
address the issue of gifts to Members and staff. The public can see 
that current congressional gift rules are, quite frankly, farcical. 
Members and staff are free to accept gifts up to a cumulative value of 
$250 from anyone. But meals do not count, and gifts under $100 do not 
count toward the $250 limit. Recreational trips such as golf, tennis, 
and ski tournaments, which may be charitable but also give lobbyists 
unique access to Members and staff, are also permitted under current 
gift rules. It is extremely difficult to convince the public that this 
unique access does not influence the policy process.
  While few, if any, Members or staff are corrupted by a free meal or 
tickets to a Red Sox game, given the low regard that Americans have for 
Congress simply must set higher standards for ourselves.
  I strongly support House Resolution 250, which prohibits Members and 
staff from accepting any gift worth more than $50, and from accepting 
an aggregate of more than $100 worth of gifts from any one source in a 
year. It does not make the distinctions between whether or not the gift 
is given here in the District of Columbia, or back home. It does not 
make distinctions between gifts from lobbyists or nonlobbyists. The 
rule is clear, concise, and simple, and therefore more likely to be 
followed than a rule which is cumbersome or confusing.
  The legislation in no way prohibits Members from performing their 
responsibilities to constituents. They will still be able to travel 
around their State and meet their constituents, eat a hamburger at a 
barbecue or crab legs at a crab feast, accept tee-shirts, mugs, and 
other locally produced products.
  The bill recognizes that just because we are Members of Congress 
doesn't mean that we have no life or personal friends, and it contains 
a reasonable personal hospitality exemption.
  Finally, the bill has passed the test of political palatability, as 
the Senate fought out the battle of compromise last summer and 
unanimously passed this bill.
  Congressman Burton will offer a substitute amendment to House 
Resolution 250 that emphasizes full disclosure of gifts rather than 
banning gifts. Under the Burton substitute, recreational trips would 
still be permitted, and Members and staff could accept gifts up to a 
$250 annual limit. The Burton amendment is an improvement over current 
law, but I believe it does not go far enough, and I intend to vote 
against it.
  Will passage of House Resolution 250 alone restore public confidence 
in Congress? Perhaps not, but we cannot refuse to act simply because we 
may not achieve our goal promptly. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Burton amendment and support House Resolution 250 so that we can show 
the American people that we have heard and respect their clarion call 
for action.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, you have to wonder, really wonder, why the 
Burton substitute is before us.
  The American people know what they want. They want a restoration of 
trust in the integrity of government. They want an end to business and 
usual. They want an end to ski trips and golf tournaments and retreats 
in the Bahamas where Members cozy up to the special interests.
  Today, after nearly a year of stalling, the Republican leadership has 
finally given us two very clear opportunities to meet those 
expectations. House Resolution 250 bans charity junkets, imposes though 
new rules on meals and tickets, and restricts the largesse of 
lobbyists. We may also apparently have before us a bill banning all 
gifts, a bill which essentially tracks a rule I have in my office.
  But we may never even get to vote on either of those measures. 
Because the Republican leadership, after trying for nearly a year to 
dodge this issue, has allowed the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Burton] to first offer a far more lenient measure.
  If Mr. Burton's substitute passes, the bad old status quo would be 
replaced by a bad new status quo, under which Members could continue to 
take unlimited $49 meals, day after day after day, because gifts under 
$50 wouldn't count.
  And if Mr. Burton's substitute passes, Members could take travel and 
lodging to golf and tennis tournaments, ski vacations, and fishing 
trips, so long as the trip is sponsored by a charity and raises at 
least $1 for the charity.
  Do those who back the Burton amendment really think they can fool the 
American people that golf tournaments and ski events are 
``substantially recreational''? Do they think they can fool the 
American people that these events aren't paid for by special interests? 
Do they think they can fool the American people that there will be no 
lobbyists on the tennis courts?
  I want to change the status quo. House Resolution 250, of which I am 
a cosponsor, shatters the old ways. Even the proposal offered by Mr. 
Gingrich is, for once, neither too extreme nor too ideological. But the 
Burton proposal is simply the status quo in a new wrapping. There is no 
way I can support it, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the Burton 
substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
printed in part 1 of House Report 104-341 if offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Burton] or his designee, which shall be considered 
read and shall be debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  If the amendment printed in part 1 of the report is rejected or not 
offered, it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in part 
2 of the report, if offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich] or his designee, which shall be considered read and shall be 
debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent.
  The text of House Resolution 250, as amended, is as follows:

                              H. Res. 250

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO HOUSE RULES.

       Rule LII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
     amended to read as follows:

                               ``Rule LII


                              ``gift rule

       ``1. (a)(1) No Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
     Representatives shall knowingly accept a gift except as 
     provided in this rule.
       ``(2) A Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift 
     (other than cash or cash equivalent) which the Member, 
     officer, or employee reasonably and in good faith believes to 
     have a value of less than $50, and a cumulative value from 
     one source during a calendar year of less than $100. No gift 
     with a value below $10 shall count toward the $100 annual 
     limit. No formal recordkeeping is required by this 
     subparagraph, but a Member, officer, or employee shall make a 
     good faith effort to comply with this subparagraph.
       ``(b)(1) For the purpose of this rule, the term `gift' 
     means any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, 
     hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary 
     value. The term includes gifts of services, training, 
     transportation, lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind, 
     by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement 
     after the expense has been incurred.
       ``(2)(A) A gift to a family member of a Member, officer, or 
     employee, or a gift to any other individual based on that 
     individual's relationship with the Member, officer, or 
     employee, shall be considered a gift to the Member, officer, 
     or employee if it is given with the knowledge and 
     acquiescence of the 

[[Page H 13079]]
     Member, officer, or employee and the Member, officer, or employee has 
     reason to believe the gift was given because of the official 
     position of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(B) If food or refreshment is provided at the same time 
     and place to both a Member, officer, or employee and the 
     spouse or dependent thereof, only the food or refreshment 
     provided to the Member, officer, or employee shall be treated 
     as a gift for purposes of this rule.
       ``(c) The restrictions in paragraph (a) shall not apply to 
     the following:
       ``(1) Anything for which the Member, officer, or employee 
     pays the market value, or does not use and promptly returns 
     to the donor.
       ``(2) A contribution, as defined in section 301(8) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) 
     that is lawfully made under that Act, a lawful contribution 
     for election to a State or local government office or 
     attendance at a fundraising event sponsored by a political 
     organization described in section 527(e) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(3) A gift from a relative as described in section 
     109(16) of title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 
     (Public Law 95-521).
       ``(4)(A) Anything provided by an individual on the basis of 
     a personal friendship unless the Member, officer, or employee 
     has reason to believe that, under the circumstances, the gift 
     was provided because of the official position of the Member, 
     officer, or employee and not because of the personal 
     friendship.
       ``(B) In determining whether a gift is provided on the 
     basis of personal friendship, the Member, officer, or 
     employee shall consider the circumstances under which the 
     gift was offered, such as:
       ``(i) The history of the relationship between the 
     individual giving the gift and the recipient of the gift, 
     including any previous exchange of gifts between such 
     individuals.
       ``(ii) Whether to the actual knowledge of the Member, 
     officer, or employee the individual who gave the gift 
     personally paid for the gift or sought a tax deduction or 
     business reimbursement for the gift.
       ``(iii) Whether to the actual knowledge of the Member, 
     officer, or employee the individual who gave the gift also at 
     the same time gave the same or similar gifts to other 
     Members, officers, or employees.
       ``(5) Except as provided in clause 3(c), a contribution or 
     other payment to a legal expense fund established for the 
     benefit of a Member, officer, or employee that is otherwise 
     lawfully made in accordance with the restrictions and 
     disclosure requirements of the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct.
       ``(6) Any gift from another Member, officer, or employee of 
     the Senate or the House of Representatives.
       ``(7) Food, refreshments, lodging, transportation, and 
     other benefits--
       ``(A) resulting from the outside business or employment 
     activities (or other outside activities that are not 
     connected to the duties of the Member, officer, or employee 
     as an officeholder) of the Member, officer, or employee, or 
     the spouse of the Member, officer, or employee, if such 
     benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of the 
     official position of the Member, officer, or employee and are 
     customarily provided to others in similar circumstances;
       ``(B) customarily provided by a prospective employer in 
     connection with bona fide employment discussions; or
       ``(C) provided by a political organization described in 
     section 527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in 
     connection with a fundraising or campaign event sponsored by 
     such an organization.
       ``(8) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued 
     participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan 
     maintained by a former employer.
       ``(9) Informational materials that are sent to the office 
     of the Member, officer, or employee in the form of books, 
     articles, periodicals, other written materials, audiotapes, 
     videotapes, or other forms of communication.
       ``(10) Awards or prizes which are given to competitors in 
     contests or events open to the public, including random 
     drawings.
       ``(11) Honorary degrees (and associated travel, food, 
     refreshments, and entertainment) and other bona fide, 
     nonmonetary awards presented in recognition of public service 
     (and associated food, refreshments, and entertainment 
     provided in the presentation of such degrees and awards).
       ``(12) Donations of products from the State that the Member 
     represents that are intended primarily for promotional 
     purposes, such as display or free distribution, and are of 
     minimal value to any individual recipient.
       ``(13) Training (including food and refreshments furnished 
     to all attendees as an integral part of the training) 
     provided to a Member, officer, or employee, if such training 
     is in the interest of the House of Representatives.
       ``(14) Bequests, inheritances, and other transfers at 
     death.
       ``(15) Any item, the receipt of which is authorized by the 
     Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, the Mutual Educational and 
     Cultural Exchange Act, or any other statute.
       ``(16) Anything which is paid for by the Federal 
     Government, by a State or local government, or secured by the 
     Government under a Government contract.
       ``(17) A gift of personal hospitality (as defined in 
     section 109(14) of the Ethics in Government Act) of an 
     individual other than a registered lobbyist or agent of a 
     foreign principal.
       ``(18) Free attendance at a widely attended event permitted 
     pursuant to paragraph (d).
       ``(19) Opportunities and benefits which are--
       ``(A) available to the public or to a class consisting of 
     all Federal employees, whether or not restricted on the basis 
     of geographic consideration;
       ``(B) offered to members of a group or class in which 
     membership is unrelated to congressional employment;
       ``(C) offered to members of an organization, such as an 
     employees' association or congressional credit union, in 
     which membership is related to congressional employment and 
     similar opportunities are available to large segments of the 
     public through organizations of similar size;
       ``(D) offered to any group or class that is not defined in 
     a manner that specifically discriminates among Government 
     employees on the basis of branch of Government or type of 
     responsibility, or on a basis that favors those of higher 
     rank or rate of pay;
       ``(E) in the form of loans from banks and other financial 
     institutions on terms generally available to the public; or
       ``(F) in the form of reduced membership or other fees for 
     participation in organization activities offered to all 
     Government employees by professional organizations if the 
     only restrictions on membership relate to professional 
     qualifications.
       ``(20) A plaque, trophy, or other item that is 
     substantially commemorative in nature and which is intended 
     for presentation.
       ``(21) Anything for which, in an unusual case, a waiver is 
     granted by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
       ``(22) Food or refreshments of a nominal value offered 
     other than as a part of a meal.
       ``(23) An item of nominal value such as a greeting card, 
     baseball cap, or a T-shirt.
       ``(d)(1) A Member, officer, or employee may accept an offer 
     of free attendance at a widely attended convention, 
     conference, symposium, forum, panel discussion, dinner, 
     viewing, reception, or similar event, provided by the sponsor 
     of the event, if--
       ``(A) the Member, officer, or employee participates in the 
     event as a speaker or a panel participant, by presenting 
     information related to Congress or matters before Congress, 
     or by performing a ceremonial function appropriate to the 
     Member's, officer's, or employee's official position; or
       ``(B) attendance at the event is appropriate to the 
     performance of the official duties or representative function 
     of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(2) A Member, officer, or employee who attends an event 
     described in subparagraph (1) may accept a sponsor's 
     unsolicited offer of free attendance at the event for an 
     accompanying individual if others in attendance will 
     generally be similarly accompanied or if such attendance is 
     appropriate to assist in the representation of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(3) A Member, officer, or employee, or the spouse or 
     dependent thereof, may accept a sponsor's unsolicited offer 
     of free attendance at a charity event, except that 
     reimbursement for transportation and lodging may not be 
     accepted in connection with the event.
       ``(4) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `free 
     attendance' may include waiver of all or part of a conference 
     or other fee, the provision of local transportation, or the 
     provision of food, refreshments, entertainment, and 
     instructional materials furnished to all attendees as an 
     integral part of the event. The term does not include 
     entertainment collateral to the event, nor does it include 
     food or refreshments taken other than in a group setting with 
     all or substantially all other attendees.
       ``(e) No Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift the 
     value of which exceeds $250 on the basis of the personal 
     friendship exception in paragraph (c)(4) unless the Committee 
     on Standards of Official Conduct issues a written 
     determination that such exception applies. No determination 
     under this paragraph is required for gifts given on the basis 
     of the family relationship exception.
       ``(f) When it is not practicable to return a tangible item 
     because it is perishable, the item may, at the discretion of 
     the recipient, be given to an appropriate charity or 
     destroyed.
       ``2. (a)(1) A reimbursement (including payment in kind) to 
     a Member, officer, or employee from a private source other 
     than a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal 
     for necessary transportation, lodging and related expenses 
     for travel to a meeting, speaking engagement, factfinding 
     trip or similar event in connection with the duties of the 
     Member, officer, or employee as an officeholder shall be 
     deemed to be a reimbursement to the House of Representatives 
     and not a gift prohibited by this rule, if the Member, 
     officer, or employee--
       ``(A) in the case of an employee, receives advance 
     authorization, from the Member or officer under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works, to accept reimbursement, and
       ``(B) discloses the expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed 
     and the authorization to the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives within 30 days after the travel is completed.
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1), events, the 
     activities of which are substantially recreational in nature, 
     shall not be considered to be in connection with the duties 
     of a Member, officer, or employee as an officeholder.

[[Page H 13080]]

       ``(b) Each advance authorization to accept reimbursement 
     shall be signed by the Member or officer under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works and shall include--
       ``(1) the name of the employee;
       ``(2) the name of the person who will make the 
     reimbursement;
       ``(3) the time, place, and purpose of the travel; and
       ``(4) a determination that the travel is in connection with 
     the duties of the employee as an officeholder and would not 
     create the appearance that the employee is using public 
     office for private gain.
       ``(c) Each disclosure made under paragraph (a)(1) of 
     expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed shall be signed by 
     the Member or officer (in the case of travel by that Member 
     or officer) or by the Member or officer under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works (in the case of travel by an 
     employee) and shall include--
       ``(1) a good faith estimate of total transportation 
     expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(2) a good faith estimate of total lodging expenses 
     reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(3) a good faith estimate of total meal expenses 
     reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(4) a good faith estimate of the total of other expenses 
     reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(5) a determination that all such expenses are necessary 
     transportation, lodging, and related expenses as defined in 
     paragraph (d); and
       ``(6) in the case of a reimbursement to a Member or 
     officer, a determination that the travel was in connection 
     with the duties of the Member or officer as an officeholder 
     and would not create the appearance that the Member or 
     officer is using public office for private gain.
       ``(d) For the purposes of this clause, the term `necessary 
     transportation, lodging, and related expenses'--
       ``(1) includes reasonable expenses that are necessary for 
     travel for a period not exceeding 3 days exclusive of travel 
     time within the United States or 7 days exclusive of travel 
     time outside of the United States unless approved in advance 
     by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct;
       ``(2) is limited to reasonable expenditures for 
     transportation, lodging, conference fees and materials, and 
     food and refreshments, including reimbursement for necessary 
     transportation, whether or not such transportation occurs 
     within the periods described in subparagraph (1);
       ``(3) does not include expenditures for recreational 
     activities, nor does it include entertainment other than that 
     provided to all attendees as an integral part of the event, 
     except for activities or entertainment otherwise permissible 
     under this rule; and
       ``(4) may include travel expenses incurred on behalf of 
     either the spouse or a child of the Member, officer, or 
     employee, subject to a determination signed by the Member or 
     officer (or in the case of an employee, the Member or officer 
     under whose direct supervision the employee works) that the 
     attendance of the spouse or child is appropriate to assist in 
     the representation of the House of Representatives.
       ``(e) The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make 
     available to the public all advance authorizations and 
     disclosures of reimbursement filed pursuant to paragraph (a) 
     as soon as possible after they are received.
       ``3. A gift prohibited by clause 1(a) includes the 
     following:
       ``(a) Anything provided by a registered lobbyist or an 
     agent of a foreign principal to an entity that is maintained 
     or controlled by a Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(b) A charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a 
     registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal on the 
     basis of a designation, recommendation, or other 
     specification of a Member, officer, or employee (not 
     including a mass mailing or other solicitation directed to a 
     broad category of persons or entities), other than a 
     charitable contribution permitted by clause 4.
       ``(c) A contribution or other payment by a registered 
     lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal to a legal 
     expense fund established for the benefit of a Member, 
     officer, or employee.
       ``(d) A financial contribution or expenditure made by a 
     registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal 
     relating to a conference, retreat, or similar event, 
     sponsored by or affiliated with an official congressional 
     organization, for or on behalf of Members, officers, or 
     employees.
       ``4. (a) A charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a 
     registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal in 
     lieu of an honorarium to a Member, officer, or employee shall 
     not be considered a gift under this rule if it is reported as 
     provided in paragraph (b).
       ``(b) A Member, officer, or employee who designates or 
     recommends a contribution to a charitable organization in 
     lieu of honoraria described in paragraph (a) shall report 
     within 30 days after such designation or recommendation to 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives--
       ``(1) the name and address of the registered lobbyist who 
     is making the contribution in lieu of honoraria;
       ``(2) the date and amount of the contribution; and
       ``(3) the name and address of the charitable organization 
     designated or recommended by the Member.
     The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make public 
     information received pursuant to this paragraph as soon as 
     possible after it is received.
       ``5. For purposes of this rule--
       ``(a) the term `registered lobbyist' means a lobbyist 
     registered under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act or 
     any successor statute; and
       ``(b) the term `agent of a foreign principal' means an 
     agent of a foreign principal registered under the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act.
       ``6. All the provisions of this rule shall be interpreted 
     and enforced solely by the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is 
     authorized to issue guidance on any matter contained in this 
     rule.''.

     SEC. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS BY THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 
                   OVERSIGHT.

       Clause 4(d) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (1), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (2) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding after 
     subparagraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) accepting a gift, other than as otherwise provided by 
     law, if the gift does not involve any duty, burden, or 
     condition, or is not made dependent upon some future 
     performance by the House of Representatives and promulgating 
     regulations to carry out this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This resolution and the amendment made by this resolution 
     shall take effect on and be effective for calendar years 
     beginning on January 1, 1996.


   amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. burton of 
                                indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Burton of Indiana: Strike all after the resolving clause and 
     insert:

     SECTION 1. GIFT DISCLOSURE.

       (a) Financial Disclosure.--Rule XLIV of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``3. Notwithstanding section 102 of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978, each report filed with the Clerk 
     under title I of such Act for calendar year 1996 or any 
     subsequent calendar year shall disclose any gift (including a 
     meal) with a fair market value in excess of $50 (other than 
     personal hospitality of an individual or any gift received 
     from a relative of the reporting individual), as adjusted 
     under section 102(a)(2)(A) of the Ethics in Government Act of 
     1978.''.
       (b) Gift Rule.--Clause 4 of Rule XLIII of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives is amended by striking ``$100'' and 
     inserting ``$50''.

     SEC. 2. CONVENTIONS, ETC.

       Clause 4 of Rule XLIII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by striking ``A Member'' and 
     inserting ``(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), 
     and (d), a Member'' and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b)(1) A Member, officer, or employee may accept an offer 
     of free attendance at a widely attended convention, 
     conference, symposium, forum, panel discussion, dinner, 
     viewing, reception, or similar event, provided by the sponsor 
     of the event, if--
       ``(A) the Member, officer, or employee participates in the 
     event as a speaker or a panel participant, by presenting 
     information related to Congress or matters before Congress, 
     or by performing a ceremonial function appropriate to the 
     Member's, officer's, or employee's official position; or
       ``(B) attendance at the event is appropriate to the 
     performance of the official duties or representative function 
     of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(2) A Member, officer, or employee who attends an event 
     described in subparagraph (1) may accept a sponsor's 
     unsolicited offer of free attendance at the event for the 
     spouse or dependent of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(3) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `free 
     attendance' may include waiver of all or part of a conference 
     or other fee, the provision of lodging or transportation or 
     the provision of food, refreshments, entertainment, and 
     instructional materials furnished to all attendees as an 
     integral part of the event. The term does not include 
     entertainment collateral to the event, nor does it include 
     food or refreshments taken other than in a group setting with 
     all or substantially all other attendees.
       ``(c) A Member, officer, or employee, or the spouse or 
     dependent thereof, may accept a sponsor's unsolicited offer 
     of free attendance at a charity event of--
       ``(1) the event is sponsored by an organization which is 
     listed under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986;
       ``(2) all Member, officer, employee, spouse, or dependent-
     related expenses are paid by the sponsoring organization and 
     not by another corporation or individual;
       ``(3) the proceeds to charity from the event exceed the 
     costs of the event; and

[[Page H 13081]]

       ``(4) the participation contributed in a tangible way to 
     the success of the event.
       ``(d) The restrictions contained in paragraphs (a), (b), 
     and (c) shall not apply to a Member who is attending an event 
     in the Member's congressional district.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Burton] and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
time allotted to me be divided between myself and the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] 
will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Burton] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 7\1/2\ minutes 
of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and the 
remaining 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster], 
and that both gentlemen be allowed to yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] will 
be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Brewster] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the Republican whip of 
the House.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Burton substitute 
and in favor of full disclosure.
  The time has come that the American people know exactly what their 
Representatives are doing here in Washington.
  Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist paid 
vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are 
they working hard to represent their constituents?
  The people, the American people, have a right to know.
  Only the Burton substitute will let the American people decide what 
is appropriate activity and what is inappropriate activity for their 
Representatives.
  Let us not kid ourselves here today. We are beating ourselves on the 
heads to prove we are pure enough to deserve the people's trust. Some 
Members are so distrustful of themselves and their colleagues, that 
they would rather we talk with no one in a casual setting, that we set 
up an artificial wall between us and the public.
  I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure, not complete 
isolation. We serve our constituents poorly if we believe that all 
Representatives are on the take and need to be taken away from the 
public, and we serve no one if we set up an ethics minefield that will 
only bring further dishonor to this House, for activities that most 
Americans do every day.
  Should it be unethical for a Member of Congress to eat dinner with a 
constituent?
  Why do we not let the people decide what is right and what is wrong? 
Why do we not just tell the people what gifts we get, through full 
disclosure, and stop this ridiculous charade of public virtue at the 
expense of common sense.
  The American people sent us here to represent them, not to hide every 
time they call to join them for dinner. Support full disclosure. 
Support the integrity of the House. Support the Burton substitute.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out that 
the Burton legislation is not full disclosure. Any gift under $50 is 
not part of the disclosure; it is not part of any limit. We can have 
countless numbers of gifts under $50.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment, and I 
state as well at the very outset that I think the people that are 
bringing this amendment and supporting it are doing so in all good 
faith and what they are trying to do is a positive statement toward 
this body. I disagree on what they are doing versus another approach, 
and I also impugn no one's character and suggest that no one is selling 
their vote for a gift. But to me this issue is about public trust, and 
the public does not trust when Members of Congress receive expensive 
gifts, they do not trust that system, and, when we have that failure of 
trust in a representative democracy, that is a very, very dangerous 
thing to have.
  That is what this issue is about. It is about the issue of public 
trust and a system and a public that does not trust this system, and 
that is why I disagree with the Burton amendment even though it is 
offered in all good faith by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] 
and those who support it, because it is a disclosure system, but it 
continues to allow a system of gifts to be able to be given to Members 
of Congress, a system that the public does not support.
  Mr. Speaker, I support rather the Speaker's approach to going to a 
complete ban on all gifts, and I would urge Members to support that. 
The Waldholtz approach I think is a good approach as well for as far as 
it does further limit, but I think it is probably time to do just what 
the commercial days and just say no to gifts.
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Brewster] for yielding this time to me.
  The reason that there is a perception of corruption, or whatever 
variation of the word is going to be used on this floor, has been used 
on this floor, is it keeps getting repeated here, and so people hear 
that in the general public even though the same people say we are all 
honorable except for the thieves and crooks among us, and then they do 
not say who the thieves and the crooks are.
  Now let us get down to what the Burton amendment does, and why I am 
supporting it, and why a broad spectrum of people are supporting it. 
This has to do with the charitable events.
  Now in real life some of us do try not only to do our duty, but to 
try to justify our existence by our relationship with our fellow human 
beings. I founded, along with one of the most conservative people in 
the Democratic caucus, the honorable gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Cramer], who started the Children's Advocacy Center in Alabama; I heard 
about it, and I brought it to the State of Hawaii. We had the first 
statewide children's advocacy center, and any of my colleagues have 
been a probation officer like I have been, anybody who served in the 
Committee on the Judiciary who knows what sexual abuse is of children, 
knows what the Children's Advocacy Centers have accomplished. It takes 
children who have been abused and keeps them from being abused further.

  Now I am to participate in an event in December. I am going to put on 
a charitable event for the Children's Advocacy Center, and I have 
appeared for them in other places around the country. I am going to be 
there, and I am going to put on a little, one of my famous Blues 
Brothers, acts. I hope some of my colleagues can catch it sometime. It 
is terrific, I want to tell my colleagues. If my colleagues think I am 
good down here, they should see me with my dark glasses and my porkpie 
hat. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people have a good time when that happens, 
but the main reason for doing it is to see to it that sexually abused 
children are no longer molested.
  And now I am supposed to withdraw myself from that because of some 
perception that somebody has conjured up as to what kind of person I am 
or somebody else is?

[[Page H 13082]]

  Now I will tell my colleagues what else we do from Hawaii. We appear 
for the Aloha United Way, the United Way, that my colleagues have in 
their community. We have the Aloha United Way, and we went as a 
congressional delegation to New York City to ask people who do business 
in Hawaii to help us with the United Way in Hawaii.
  Now somebody wants to run against me, and that is what I hear from 
one Member after another, the reason we cannot vote for this amendment 
is somebody is going to use it in a campaign commercial against us. Mr. 
Speaker, I invite anybody who wants to use a campaign commercial 
against me that I am supporting the United Way to please do so because 
any idiot that is going to run for office is going to use that for an 
excuse, and anybody here that cannot contend with an opponent that is 
going to be against them because they are in favor of charitable 
events, he deserves, or she deserves, to get elected, and my colleague 
does not. But I am proud to be associated with these charitable events, 
I am proud to appear anywhere in the country on their behalf, and I am 
proud to support the Burton-Clay-Brewster-Abercrombie amendment.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, this may be a well-meaning 
amendment, but it guts the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, there are millions of people in this country who are 
involved in the United Way. There are millions of people in this 
country who care about abused children. There are millions of people in 
this country who care about all sorts of very valuable things for our 
society. But do those people get their airfare paid? Do those people 
get golf fees paid, green fees paid, that could be $100-$200? No, of 
course not, of course not, and that is what the issue is here today.
  I think that the people in this body are admirable, they are 
honorable, people, and most of them got elected here because they are 
involved in their community, and they have been elected for that, and 
they should continue to be doing that. But they should not have 
privileges that the people sitting in this gallery, the people sitting 
in this country, do not have. It is that simple. The people in this 
country do not want this regulated, they do not want more paperwork, 
they do not want more bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, they want this practice 
stopped, and that is what we should do.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Bono], my dear friend and colleague.
  (Mr. BONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONO. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad state of affairs because when 
people do honorable things, and then somebody writes some bill and 
says, ``You know, you have to stop doing that honorable thing, can't do 
that anymore;'' why? Mr. Speaker, because we are writing this extremely 
righteous bill that will make us honest. I did not know I was not 
honest.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very sad that we cannot look our constituents in 
the eye and say, I don't do that, I don't do that, I just do what I do, 
so I'll be happy to show you or tell you whatever I do. I'll disclose 
that, but please let me take care of my own ethics, and if I'm not 
worthy, throw me out. But let me be responsible for myself. Don't make 
me responsible to some poorly written legislation.
  Do my colleagues know that when I read this legislation I said, Well, 
what about my film festival that I founded in Palm Springs? Can I have 
my party at my house that the film festival puts on?
  They said, ``We don't know.''
  Mr. Speaker, if they do not know, how do we know when we are breaking 
the law with this bill?
  I support the Burton amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be made 
very clear that no one says that anyone is doing anything illegal, and 
there are no criminal penalties in this bill. But I do want to say that 
over the years, as I have been in politics, I know when I spend time 
with people like we spend on these charity golf trips that we get real 
close to the lobbyists that sponsor them. It is the time they get, my 
colleagues, it is not so much the money. It is the time we spend with 
them that they have our ear. The American people do not have our ear 
that long. It is the impression. The American people believe in the 
last poll that I just read that just came out, 90 percent of the people 
believe we listen to lobbyists more than the people.
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Burton 
amendment.
  My State of Florida is known as the Sunshine State, not just because 
of our favorable weather conditions, but because we have led the Nation 
with our government in sunshine laws. In Florida, you conduct your 
business in public and you let the people decide if what you are doing 
is appropriate.
  The Burton bill follows the same approach. It keeps the current $250 
limit, lowers the threshold from $100 to $50 and draws open the 
curtains to let the sunshine in.
  Everything else we are doing in this Congress is about sending power 
back to the people. Giving them more control over their government. 
That is what this bill does. Disclose everything, then let the people 
decide if their representative is using their office for personal gain. 
No other bill on the floor today provides the same level of disclosure 
as the Burton bill. Vote for sunshine, vote for the Burton amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman from the other side 
of the aisle put it quite well with reference to this measure. We now 
have the opportunity to achieve on a true bipartisan basis, finally, 
real reform. We should not substitute for full reform something that 
appears to be full reform, done in the name of disclosure, which really 
does not change the existing law very much at all.
  What the American people want is not to hear more of the details of 
the kind of business as usual that they have rejected. They want to see 
it stopped once and for all.
  Many of these charitable events are done for a most charitable and 
worthy purpose. The only problem is that so often, it is the Member who 
gets most of the charity, and not the good cause that the charitable 
event is for.
  There is still no reason that Members of Congress cannot participate 
in such events, contribute to their community, but the direction and 
the purpose needs to be for the benefit of the charity, not for the 
benefit of the Member. We have the opportunity today to make real 
progress in this area. Let us do it by rejecting this substitute.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Scott Klug.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. 
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, Tom Barrett, 
and the other Members of the bipartisan team who have been working on 
this bill and similar legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the intentions of my colleagues who are 
offering the substitute but, Mr. Speaker, you know how the road to hell 
was eventually paved, and in this case we also know how the cart path 
at Pebble Beach was paved as well.
  Wisconsin's legislature has had a zero gift ban in place for a number 
of years, and I am not sure how I can tell people in this body, but 
legislation actually gets passed. Members of the Wisconsin State 
Legislature get laws into place without accepting alarm clocks and 
trips and gym bags and tee shirts and all the other bric-a-brac that 
shows up in our office, and they also manage to play golf and play 
tennis, but they do so and they pay their own way.
  Mr. Speaker, our constituents sent us here to do a number of things. 
They have sent us here to balance the budget, and we are beginning to 
work on it this week. They sent us here to eventually pass term limits, 
and before I 

[[Page H 13083]]
leave, I hope Congress will eventually put term limits in place as 
well. More than anything else, they wanted us to make this a place 
again that we can be proud of, our constituents back home, and every 
one of us who serve in this institution as well. I hope we defeat the 
Burton amendment and pass the substitute offered by the Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing our constituents want us to do, 
by the way. They want us to pay for our own lunch.
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I support the efforts of the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Brewster]. I want a tough bill, but I also want to be able to continue 
to help my friends raise money for charity.
  There is a former Congressman around here named Ralph Harding, and 
Ralph and I and a number of other people have combined under the 
present system to raise more than $1 million to help fight leukemia in 
this country. Senator Orrin Hatch and I do not see things eye to eye 
politically, but we are good friends, and I have helped Orrin for a 
number of years raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for efforts such 
as child care centers and halfway houses, safe houses for battered 
spouses down in Utah.
  The system works now. I do not get anything out of this, but it works 
well, and we really ought to protect and shield those charities so that 
we continue to raise millions of dollars for needy efforts in this 
country. That is what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] are trying to do. I support them 
in their efforts.
  I have always worked for strong ethics legislation. I am going to 
continue to do that by voting for the amendment of the gentleman from 
Indiana and the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make three observations about 
this legislation. First, those of us that serve in Congress are 
actually serving in a fiduciary capacity. We represent the people in 
the congressional districts that sent us. We have a fiduciary 
relationship with them. It is our obligation to try to observe this in 
every respect.
  Second, I think we should attempt to observe the same standards that 
are observed in the rest of government. There has been a great deal of 
criticism of the Supreme Court recently, and judges for accepting 
trips. As I understand it, the judicial branch is trying to review its 
rules and tighten things up.
  The executive branch has gone through that process and they have a 
proposal; not a proposal, they have legislation and rules that they 
live by that are not consistent with what is being urged by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. Instead, it is the same or very 
close to the underlying bill and the Senate legislation.
  Third, I would like to just briefly comment that access is perhaps 
the critical thing. People are looking for access to Members of 
Congress. They want our time. I think we have to try to make sure that 
our time is given to people, not on the basis of their ability to help 
finance trips, but instead on the basis of our availability in our 
office and in our district to meet with them on the merits of the 
cases.
  We certainly have many other areas where reform is needed. At the 
same time, I think we should avoid impugning the integrity of anyone in 
the Chamber. I do not question the motives of the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton]. I think he, too, is interested in improving the 
caliber of this institution, but we need legislation similar to the 
Senate's.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Pete Hoekstra.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a vision. We want to restore the trust of the 
American people and the integrity of the legislative process. For the 
last 11 months we have been pursuing this. We have reformed welfare, 
Medicare, regulatory reform. We have a whole series of reforms on 
opening today. Today we are going to finish a couple of more pieces of 
business.
  The Waldholtz bill is reasonable reform guidelines. We have listened 
to the American people. They said, ``Reform these legislative 
businesses and items, but also restore the process where you are 
personally enriched.'' The Waldholtz bill is a reasonable process. It 
does not ban participation in charities, it does not ban participation 
in charity events, it just says that when you participate in charities, 
just like all the other people that are participating in these events, 
you are expected to be charitable and carry your own weight at these 
events.
  All the Burton bill does is it protects access to Members of Congress 
through privilege and special interest. It needs to stop. Vote ``no'' 
on Burton.
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] 
is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of the 
Burton full disclosure amendment. I am very concerned with the Congress 
bashing that is quite popular with certain Members and with the media. 
It makes me angry to watch the news and continually see honest Members 
of Congress portrayed as crooks who can be influenced by meals, travel, 
entertainment, or other gifts in making official decisions.
  By even considering this issue, we serve only to reinforce that 
negative image. People who oppose the Burton bill have called the 
supporters of the bill the so-called golf and tennis caucus. What I 
would like to know is how many of those Members who feel it is wrong to 
accept a cup of coffee from a lobbyist feel it is all right to ask for 
a $1,000 campaign contribution?
  If a Member of Congress can have his or her vote bought for a cup of 
coffee or a $25 meal, then imagine what happens to that individual when 
they beg for and receive a $500 campaign contribution, a $1,000 
contribution, or even numerous $5,000 contributions. Honesty is not for 
sale. If a Member feels they can be influenced by someone buying their 
dinner, they should not go. Neither should they call some lobbyist and 
ask for a $1,000 campaign contribution.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about keeping golf and tennis trips, this is 
about restoring credibility to this institution. If it is wrong to play 
golf with a lobbyist at a charity event, then why do we make it right 
in this legislation to play at political events that the Democratic 
Congressional Campaign Committee has, the national Republican Campaign 
Committee has, and we ask Members to call these same lobbyists asking 
them to bring money? If the first is wrong, so is the second.
  We will never satisfy the people who are pushing this issue. You can 
fire your staff, take an oath of poverty, and work for free, and you 
will never satisfy some groups on this issue.
  The Burton bill allows our constituents to judge us, not the Ethics 
Committee, but the people who elected us to come here to start with. 
Mr. Speaker, the answer to gift reform is reporting and accountability. 
The answer to gift reform is the Burton full disclosure amendment. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Burton full disclosure amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tompore. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] 
has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, it is so simple. Why pass laws to make 
Members fill out forms to tell what they took from lobbyists? Zero is 
zero. No complications, no forms, no gifts.
  I ask Members to defeat the substitute and vote for real reform.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa, 
[Mr. Ganske].
  (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for gift ban reform. I believe 
that 

[[Page H 13084]]
House Resolution 250 is reasonable, and that the Burton amendment just 
does not go far enough. I will also vote for the Gingrich amendment, 
which is a ban on all gifts. The Burton amendment basically allows the 
current system to continue, and I oppose it. If you are for the status 
quo, vote for the amendment.
   Mr. Speaker, lobbyists represent farmers, unions, teachers, 
insurers, consumers, and others. They provide information on both sides 
of issues for the common citizens they represent. I will listen to a 
lobbyist for farmers, just as I do for an individual farmer, but I do 
not need a fancy meal in order to be well informed. Vote against the 
Burton amendment and vote for the Gingrich amendment, or for House 
Resolution 250, or for both.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gift ban reform bill and 
against the Burton amendment. I would just like to make several simple 
points. First, the current rules which we have are farcical. Why, gifts 
under $100 do not even count to the $250 cumulative limit we can 
achieve.
  No. 2, the executive branch lives by tough gift rules. Gifts over $20 
are banned, and the cumulative value of gifts which can be accepted is 
$50.
  No. 3, this reform bill is not overly restrictive. Gifts over $50 are 
banned, and gifts under $50 may be accepted up to an aggregate of $100.
  Finally, and maybe this is most important of all, the public, our 
constituents, probably get no unsolicited gifts whatsoever. We are 
arguing about the amount of the gifts we should get. I think we should 
not be afraid to restrict ourselves in terms of these gifts. Mr. 
Speaker, I urge us to consider that.
  I would also urge us to look at the fact that the Senate passed this 
same bill unanimously last year. I would urge us to defeat the Burton 
bill, to consider the Gingrich amendment, as you please, and to make 
absolutely sure that we all vote for the reform bill in the name of the 
public when it comes up at the end of the day.
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] is 
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think it is heartwarming at this 
contentious time in this House's business to find so many Republicans 
and Democrats coming forward on the same side, and frankly on both 
sides, but particularly on the side of reform, because this bill has 
been a bipartisan effort for three years. I think if we can pass it 
today intact, it will be a bipartisan credit to this House, one of 
which we can all be very, very proud.
  Mr. Speaker, the refuge that has been taken by the proponents of the 
Burton amendment in charitable activities I think is clever. In a few 
ways, maybe it is even deserved. But by and large, I think it is 
clever, because it suggests that all of these activities are really 
being done only for the benefit of charities.
  The fact of the matter is, there is no prohibition in this bill for 
charitable activities. None whatsoever. All of the charitable 
activities that have been referred to which are all very fine efforts 
can continue to be done.
  The fact of the matter is, though, that this particular charitable 
activity that these Members are talking about does not involve any 
sacrifice on their part, it involves them being flown by this charity, 
which is normally a charity activity sponsored by a major corporation 
that lobbies this House ever day of the week, flown by them clear 
across the country to a beautiful place to play golf for several days 
and then home again, and then usually they get a bag of gifts at the 
same time.
  I do not care whether it influences your vote or not. I do not think 
in most cases it does, but the public sees it that way and the public 
loses confidence in this institution. Why in the world would anybody 
come here and ask that they be able to continue playing charity golf at 
the expense of the reputation of this institution?
  The fact of the matter is that the Burton amendment will allow 
unlimited gifts, unlimited free tickets, unlimited meals, et cetera, 
from lobbyists as long as they are under $50 all year long.
  Do I think that that kind of thing corrupts Members or makes them 
always vote with the lobbyists? No, but I do know this: It has a 
regular and certain subconscious effect on anybody to constantly be in 
the company of somebody else who is paying the bills. That is just 
human nature.
  Mr. Speaker, it is our job here to pass legislation and rules that 
give the public confidence that we are not legislating in the interests 
of those people that are hanging around, but we are legislating in the 
interests of those people that sent us up here and, by the way, pay us 
a nice salary for doing this job.
  I say to my colleagues, if you want to go on these charity golf 
trips, if you want to be in this activity, pay for it yourself. I urge 
Members to vote against the Burton amendment. Let us pass this bill and 
have a bipartisan project that we can be proud of.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this partial disclosure that is proposed by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], my friend and colleague, has 
two things in it that I think Members should know about. First of all, 
we have a fairly significant new disclosure requirement that means 
reporting any gift over $50, that includes meals, will have to be 
reported. There is no such provision now, that is something new, and 
before you vote for this, I would urge that you think about that if you 
are planning to vote for it.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, there is no exemption from disclosure 
requirements for gifts over $50 from personal friends. Members should 
know that they and their staff would be required to disclose any gift, 
including a meal, over $50 from a personal friend. That is also new.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
point out that a vote for the Burton amendment is a vote against 
reform. It allows gifts of up to $250 each year, or $500 per term. It 
allows any gifts under $50, countless gifts under $50; it allows paid 
vacations in the name of charity, in many cases funded by lobbyists.
  The passage of the Burton amendment prevents a vote on the Senate 
bill and the Waldholtz-Barrett bill. It also prevents a vote on the 
Speaker's bill of no gift. I urge an absolute no vote on the Burton 
amendment.
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very civilized 
debate and I appreciate that from all of my colleagues. There are some 
things, though, that have not been explained that I think need to be 
explained.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about just prohibiting access from 
lobbyists, we are talking about our constituents' access, because the 
legislation that the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] and the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and others are sponsoring is 
going to limit access by our constituents. If they come to Washington 
and want to take us out to lunch or to dinner, we are going to have to 
say no in many cases, especially if we have a long-term relationship, 
if they are not a dyed-in-the-wool friend.
  In addition to that, my colleagues, remember this: It says, gifts and 
meals valued at $10 or more count toward the cumulative limit of $100. 
Now, it says you do not have to keep records on that, but I am telling 
you that you are going to have to keep records on that, everything over 
$10. Everything over $10. Now, how many in this place are 

[[Page H 13085]]
going to be watching everything over $10?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the 
gentleman, would it not be just as easy to buy them lunch?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say 
to the gentleman from Mississippi, of course. The fact of the matter is 
we have constituents coming in here by the hundreds and everybody here 
knows that, and if my colleague has the money to buy every one of them 
lunch, then congratulations. I do not.
  The fact of the matter is, you are going to have to keep track of 
everything over $10, because at some point in the future, you may be 
called up before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and 
you are going to have to answer.
  Now, in addition to that, remember this: If you violate the ethics 
laws, and we did not think when we had the House bank scandal we were 
going to have problems, but we did, and a lot of people were defeated 
and some even went to jail over it. I am telling you, we are going to 
have problems with this, and there is going to have to be legal fees 
paid.
  Now, if you go before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
and you have to plead your case because of some of these improprieties 
or alleged improprieties, you are going to have to hire an attorney and 
you are going to have to pay for it and it is going to cost you a lot 
of money.
  Now, let us talk about my bill, my approach. It has been said by the 
proponents of the Waldholtz bill that they have broad bipartisan 
support. Well, we have broad bipartisan support on my substitute. We 
have over 100 cosponsors, because Members, when they find out what they 
are going to be up against, realize that it is better to have complete 
and full disclosure than to start worrying about everything over $10 
that we are going to have to be accountable for.
  Now, what is wrong with full disclosure? Who are we answerable to? 
Who put us here? Our constituents. Our constituents put us here. If we 
do something wrong and it is in the paper, they are going to hold us 
accountable. So what is wrong with disclosing everything?
  Mr. Speaker, what my bill says is that everything above $50 we keep 
track of, if it is a meal or a gift or whatever it is. We keep track of 
it and we report it on our FEC report. I guarantee you, these people up 
here are going to be watching our FEC reports because they already do, 
and if we abuse our privileges in the House, they are going to report 
it on the front pages of our papers, and we are going to be held 
accountable by our constituents and maybe even thrown out of office.

  So that is the way to handle it. Have full disclosure. Do not mess 
with this minutia that is going to get us into trouble before the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  Now, I would like to talk about these charities. I go to about two of 
these charity events a year. One is the Danny Thompson event in Sun 
Valley, ID. I do not even know who I am going to play with when I play 
in that event, because it is drawn by lottery. You do not know if it is 
a lobbyist or a businessman or who it is.
  So this idea that we are being lobbied all the time is crazy. We have 
more of these lobbyists in our office every day than we do on the golf 
course, so that is a bogus argument. The fact of the matter is the 
Danny Thompson Golf Tournament has raised collectively over $3 million 
for cancer research, and with the private foundations that give 
matching funds, that translates into $30 million that has been raised 
for cancer research. In this past year they found a cure for kids who 
have lymphatic cancer that is going to save thousands and thousands of 
young kids' lives.
  Now, is the Federal Government going to pick up the tab for that? 
What is wrong with us playing in a charity event that helps those 
things and helps those kids? I see nothing wrong with it.
  The answer, my friends, is complete and full disclosure. Let those 
people, let the American people know what we are doing and let them be 
the judge, not some Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). Pursuant to 
the rule, the previous question is ordered on the amendment.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 154, 
nays 276, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 807]

                               YEAS--154

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Mfume
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Towns
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--276

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coleman
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan

[[Page H 13086]]

     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Fields (LA)
     Tucker
       

                              {time}  1719

  Messrs. LONGLEY, WHITE, NEUMANN, HALL of Texas, WYNN, BUYER, Ms. 
HARMAN, and Messrs. METCALF, RAHALL, SERRANO, GILCHREST, CONDIT, 
SISISKY, and CHRYSLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. OWENS, Ms. DANNER, and Messrs. WATTS of Oklahoma, NETHERCUTT, and 
ALLARD changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to speak out of order 
and address the House for 1 minute.)

                          ____________________