[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13086-H13095]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time to inquire about the 
schedule for today and the rest of the week.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the distinguished majority leader and ask 
about the schedule for the rest of the day and the week.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, of course, the Members are very concerned about what 
will be our schedule, and we have worked very hard to come to a point 
where now I can give a pretty good outline of what the rest of the week 
and the early part of next week will look like.
  If the gentleman will continue to yield, it is our hope to finish the 
Gift Reform Act and the Lobby Disclosure Act this evening, Mr. Speaker. 
Tomorrow we plan to consider the conference report on the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1995 and also to consider H.R. 260, legislation regarding 
American troops in Bosnia.
  On Saturday, the House will be in session and voting, beginning about 
12 noon.
  The House will not be in session on Sunday, but will be in session on 
Monday and Tuesday.
  Given the circumstances, I cannot divine further than next Tuesday, 
although we will inform Members early next week about the balance of 
the week, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I would like to ask the gentleman if he has a good 
estimate on when Members might expect to be able to leave here on 
Saturday afternoon or evening.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for his inquiry. I can only regret 
that it was not directed to someone else.
  But my best estimate is that our work would be completed around 6 on 
Saturday.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Could the gentleman further inform us what might be on 
the schedule for Saturday and what time Members might be expected to be 
here on Monday?
  Mr. ARMEY. The most certain thing we would have under consideration 
on Saturday would be further consideration of the Balanced Budget Act 
of 1995, upon action of the other body, and then, of course, we have 
some very important conference reports we would hope to get to on 
Saturday as well.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. On Monday, what time would the gentleman think we might 
come in?
  Mr. ARMEY. I am pleased to announce to my colleagues that we expect 
no votes before 2 on Monday.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. And finally, could the gentleman answer about what 
would be the estimated time of the first vote on Saturday?
  Mr. ARMEY. Saturday, I should think that we would probably have the 
first vote between 12:30 and 1 o'clock.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
yielding.
  I wonder if we could learn about the activities later this evening. 
My understanding is that there are some 20 amendments that have been 
listed as possible amendments to the lobby reform bill which will 
follow the gift rule. Does the gentleman have a time certain tonight 
that we would terminate our activities, or do we just go through the 
evening into the morning hours dealing with the amendments, many of 
which have been heard but some of which are new?
  Mr. ARMEY. I appreciate the gentleman's concern. Let me just say, 
first of all, of course, it is an open rule, and as is often the case 
in an open rule with a great many amendments, the managers of the bill 
can often work things out with the Members with amendments, and that is 
always the best way to come to an arrangement on time.
  What I would propose doing is watching to see how well that progress 
can go and then perhaps making a decision about completing the bill or 
perhaps, in fact, giving it further consideration.
  It is our hope and our desire to complete the bill tonight, and I am 
placing a great deal of confidence in the collegiality of the bill 
managers and the Members with amendments.

  Mr. GEPHARDT. One more point or question. With respect, I would just 
urge the distinguished majority leader to perhaps look at the idea of 
coming in Saturday a littler earlier so that Members would have a 
chance, if they were going to go back to their districts on Saturday 
night, to be able to accomplish that.
  Mr. ARMEY. It appears that the gentleman's point is well taken, and I 
will take it under consideration.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Let me say to the distinguished majority leader that I 
would hope that it might be possible, and I know the President made 
statements today, and the Speaker and the Senate majority leader, about 
trying to figure our way through this business of a continuing 
appropriation.
  If something could be arrived at on Saturday, I assume that if that 
can be accomplished for a period of time that would get us past 
Thanksgiving, that we might be able to avoid a session on Monday and 
Tuesday. I know that is a very tough thing to get done and will take 
some time. But if that could be done, does the gentleman think we might 
be able to avoid Monday and Tuesday?
  Mr. ARMEY. I believe that it could be possible should an accord be 
reached on a continuing appropriation, but at this point I have to say 
we have a very clear and a very important schedule before us that we 
would intend to work on.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. If the gentleman would yield further, I have 
had some Members suggest that perhaps we could work on Sunday, if it 
would be possible to be out of here next week; in other words, keep 
working until we have completed our work. Is there any possibility that 
that could be entertained?
  Mr. ARMEY. At this point, we have no plans to work on Sunday.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Could the gentleman tell us what the plans are for 
Wednesday and Thursday for next week? Could the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas tell us what the plans of the leadership are for Wednesday 
and Thursday of next week?
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for his inquiry.

[[Page H 13087]]

  If I may, if the gentleman would yield further, Mr. Speaker, I hope 
it is in order for me to make the observation that Sunday is a Sabbath 
and we try to respect that. In addition, of course, the gentleman, and 
you are a tough crowd, and, if I may say to the Members, we are, of 
course, very much cognizant of Thursday, Thanksgiving Day. We are also 
acutely aware of the fact of the difficulties of traveling on Wednesday 
prior to Thursday, and we will make every effort we can to find a place 
where we can close business in order to enable Members to be back in 
their districts with their families Thanksgiving Day. I will assure the 
gentleman from Michigan this is a very big priority with us.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the majority leader, I 
understand, of course, Saturday is the Sabbath, Sunday is the day of 
rest for many, as well, and for religious services. But, Mr. Leader, 
you are well aware that we have now shut down the Government for the 
longest period of time in history as a result of an impasse between the 
Congress and the President. Waiting until Monday or Tuesday to try to 
resolve this will not only put many, many people in the public and 
private sectors in great distress and trauma, but it also will incur 
substantially additional costs.

                              {time}  1730

  If we could resolve this by the end of the weekend so that the 
Federal Government could undertake operations on Monday, that would be 
beneficial for every American and would be in the fiscal best interests 
of our country, which, of course, are some of the things we have been 
discussing.
  Toward that end, I would hope we would very seriously consider trying 
to resolve this impasse before the beginning of next week.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and the gentleman's 
expression of concern I think is very much a genuine expression and one 
that can only invoke the most empathic response. The gentleman did, in 
fact, just last night vote for a continuing resolution that would 
enable us to resolve the dilemma. We are moving that along as fast as 
we can to the White House. We are hopeful the President will sign it, 
in which case we will be exactly where the gentleman wants to go.
  Mr. HOYER. In the event though, Mr. Leader, we are not there, what I 
am urging is that we continue to work with consideration for religious 
services for all the Members, but in that context, to continue to work 
straight through, so that we could try to resolve this impasse.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Salmon].
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, just an alternative thought on the schedule. 
I know the President and others on the other side have been critical of 
our not getting out the appropriations bills. Maybe we should just keep 
going right on up to Thanksgiving to get those appropriations bills 
out.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I would say to the gentleman, since we do not have our 
applause meter out here, we cannot decipher that.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield further, may I assure my 
colleagues, the hourly schedules and daily schedules we have outlined 
here for the floor, I believe, accommodate quite nicely to everything I 
can at this time forecast we could have available to bring to the floor 
within the day's outline. If other opportunities present themselves, we 
will certainly revisit the schedule and inform Members.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, there will not 
be another vote for another 30 minutes or so, so if some of the Members 
want to leave, they are welcome to.


                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], I offer an amendment printed in part 2 of House 
Report 104-341.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The Clerk 
will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 2, line 3, strike 
     ``(1)'' and strike lines 6 through 15.
       Page 7, strike lines 1 through 5, and page 9, strike lines 
     15 through 16 and redesignate paragraphs (13) through (22) as 
     paragraphs (12) through (21).
       Page 10, line 9, insert a period after ``individual'' and 
     strike ``if others'' and all that follows through line 12.
       Page 13, beginning in line 24 strike ``3 days exclusive of 
     travel time within the United States'' and insert ``4 days 
     within the United States''.
       Page 14, insert a period after ``employee'' in line 17 and 
     strike ``subject to'' and all that follows through line 23.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member 
opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Rules Committee, I am obliged to 
support the position of the committee which was to favorably report 
House Resolution 250 and urge its adoption. It is a good resolution and 
one which we can all be proud of.
  At the same time, I have an obligation as a Member to support 
amendments that will help to improve and strengthen this resolution, 
and the amendment of our distinguished Speaker is such an amendment.
  During our hearings on House Resolution 250, I agreed with those 
House Members and public witnesses who urged us to report to the House 
the resolution as passed by the Senate. We used that as our guidelines 
in reporting House Resolution 250 to the House by unanimous voice vote, 
with only a few technical amendments.
  At the same time, I was deeply troubled by the prospect that the $10 
exemption for gifts that would count toward the $50 and $100 limits 
would inadvertently trip up some Members and land them in the Ethics 
Committee on a frivolous or malicious complaint filed with that 
committee.
  At first we considered raising the exempt threshold to those gifts 
under $20 which was the exempt limit in last year's bill passed by the 
House and Senate.
  But we did not do that, because too many people would charge that we 
were weakening the resolution. I therefore came to conclude that the 
best way to avoid getting into trouble was to adopt the total gift ban 
recommended by the Speaker.
  It retains most of the exceptions contained in the existing 
resolution including exemptions for gifts from close personal friends 
and relatives, gifts of personal hospitality, and reimbursements from 
private sources for travel, in connection with our official duties, 
such as speech making, factfinding, and substantial participation 
events.
  The two exceptions from the gift rule that are dropped in the 
Gingrich-Solomon amendment are gifts of home State products made to 
Members, and their offices, and gifts of nominal value such as t-
shirts, baseball caps, coffee mugs, etc. Members can still accept such 
things as commemorative plaques for their service as Members.
  But I think most Members will be much more comfortable with the zero-
gift rule proposed by the Speaker, because it does establish that 
bright line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
  There is no need for recordkeeping or disclosure for gifts from 
persons who are not close personal friends or relatives. You just 
cannot accept them. Period?
  No meals, no free tickets, no bottles of wine, or baskets of fruit or 
birthday cakes--no matter what their value. What could be more simple 
than just saying no--in a polite way of course.
  I know many Members now have such a policy in their own offices 
including me and to a person they indicate that it is the easiest 
policy in the world to live with, because there are no gray areas. If a 
gift comes into your office from someone who is not a friend, you just 
refuse to accept it.
  I urge support for the Gingrich-Solomon amendment that simply says 
accept no gifts.
  Mr. Speaker, the Gingrich-Solomon amendment also makes another 
important change in this resolution, and that is to delete the 
requirement that for a spouse or child to accompany you on a privately 
reimbursable trip for official 

[[Page H 13088]]
business, you must determine and certify that they are, and I quote 
``appropriate to assist in the representation of the House.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is demeaning, insulting, and unnecessary language. 
It is contrary to our family friendly policy that we established this 
year in this House. One Member of this House put it very bluntly but 
appropriately when she said: ``I don't take my husband with me to 
represent the House. I take him with me to keep our marriage 
together.''
  Mr. Speaker, we don't make speeches to groups and associations for 
the fun of it. We do so because part of our representational function 
here is to help educate the public as to what we are doing in this 
Congress. We can not depend on the media or on people staying glued to 
C-SPAN for them to know what the Congress is doing.
  We have an obligation to keep the people informed as to what 
legislation we are considering, what our agenda is, and what we have 
accomplished.
  My wife is gracious enough to accompany me on the few trips I do take 
when I am invited to address associations that represent my 
constituents.
  I do not and will not make it a condition for her accompanying me on 
those rare occasions that she must somehow prove that she is 
representing the House to justify her being with me. I want her to be 
with me because she is my wife and not because she is an ambassador for 
the House, as important as this institution is.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the Gingrich-Solomon amendment is simple; 
it is easy to understand; and it is that bright line that is easy to 
comply with. It says to our Members and to this House that we do not 
depend on, we do not need, or we certainly do not want any kind of 
gifts from persons who are not friends or relatives.
  It says to our constituents what they expect of us in the first 
place, and that is that we are willing to adopt, to comply with, and to 
enforce the strictest of ethical standards.
  It says to the American people that there is no question that we are 
somehow beholden to the gifts of those who may even indirectly try to 
influence our behavior or voting in this House.
  We are here because we believe that this Government is and should be 
of the people, by the people, and for the people, and, as the people's 
House, we are here as servants of the people for 2 short years before 
we must take our records and conduct, back to the people for renewal.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I will manage the time, as I know of no 
Member who intends to rise in opposition to this amendment on our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me time, and I thank him for his leadership, along with my 
good friend, the gentleman from Texas, John Bryant.
  I appreciate the words of the distinguished gentleman from New York 
and rise to support the Speaker's amendment on this issue because there 
are just two simple propositions that we need to pay attention to.
  This amendment would result in a ban of all underlying gifts, and it 
would even include, though I come from the great State of Texas and 
they have some good barbecue, any gifts that come in as home-State 
products. Simply a fairness issue.
  I think it is time now for the U.S. Congress to go right to the line, 
to go straight to the point. And the point is to ban all gifts. It bans 
Members from accepting free travel to events that are substantially 
recreational in nature. Nothing less, nothing more. Simple fairness.
  Coming on this House floor on January 4, 1995, as a freshman, that 
was the first statement I made, a willingness to ban gifts so that we 
could get on with the people's business. Now we have come to this point 
on November 16, 1995. I join in supporting what really we should be 
doing, cleaning the people's House; standing up for what Americans say 
we should be doing, and that is doing their work. Ban all gifts. It is 
a good amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL, Porter Goss, one of the very distinguished Members of this 
body. He is not only a member of our Committee on Rules but he is a 
long-standing member of the Ethics Committee.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes three major changes to 
the base text of House Resolution 250, leaving the rest of its 
provisions intact. These changes have the effect of: First, providing a 
general ban on all gifts--including meals. This proposal does away with 
the idea of dollar value thresholds--in other words, regardless of the 
value of a gift or meal, Members and staff would simply not be 
permitted to accept it. In terms of defining what constitutes a gift, 
this amendment retains 21 of the 23 exceptions that are in House 
Resolution 250--most of them commonsense mentions that provide Members 
with some sense of confidence that they can live normal lives; second, 
providing a reasonable assurance that Members can make their own 
decisions about when it is appropriate for them to be accompanied by 
their spouse or child at an event or on a trip; and third, conforming 
the domestic travel limit to current House rules of 4 days.

  These changes make a lot of sense to me. For Members who are 
concerned that the dollar thresholds and triggers in House Resolution 
250 could entrap Members even as they try to do the right thing. By 
banning all gifts the bright lines should be very clear. Having had 
such a policy in my office for 7 years--in fact a policy that goes 
beyond this proposal, because we accept no travel--I can assure my 
colleagues that a clear ban is workable. I urge my colleagues to 
support this approach--it is fair and it will go a long way in helping 
to restore the public's faith in this body.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, before I was elected last November, I took 
the common cause pledge to not accept gifts in my office, and I have 
adhered to that pledge throughout the time that I have been here. I 
introduced a bill that would do exactly what this amendment would do, 
it would say that in Congress we do not take gifts.
  Throughout my district, I have talked about the need for Congress to 
operate in a bipartisan way and for Congress to clean up its House in 
terms of ethics, and I am pleased to support this effort today, which 
is both, bipartisan and reflective of our need to put ethics first.
  Mr. Speaker, this is really the deimperialization of Congress. We are 
saying to our Nation that we will not take gifts, we will pay for our 
own food, we will pay for our own travel, we will pay for our own 
recreation. This is not revolutionary, it is not unreasonable, it is 
not unduly burdensome, it is simply the right thing to do. I urge a 
``yes'' vote.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Brownback], one of the outstanding new Members of this 
body, one who has led the fight for reform since he arrived here about 
11 months ago.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his 
kinds words.
  Briefly stated, this is a very important reform on trying to 
reestablish some public trust in elective office. I say this not to 
impugn anything or anybody at this institution or body, but simply that 
people do not trust the system. We have to change the system.
  I think until we ban gifts completely, they will not trust the 
system. Indeed, half steps forward may actually take us backward in the 
public's perception of this body and trust. And that is what this is 
all about, about public trust.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, to just say 
``no'' to gifts, to ban them, and to start to reestablish that public 
trust in this body.

[[Page H 13089]]

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the other side of 
the aisle for yielding me time, and I also want to compliment the 
distinguished gentleman, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for 
structuring a fair rule, and also for being a partner during the last 3 
weeks as we have tried to put together this reform to the gift policy 
in the House.
  It has been a fun time, it has been a learning time, but, most 
importantly, I think tonight, as we complete this process, we can 
demonstrate that we have gone through a process of listening to the 
American people, we have spent a tremendous amount of time listening to 
Members, Members of both sides of the aisle, and recognize that they 
have all approached this issue with a lot of emotion, a lot of good 
will, and a lot of genuine interest in doing the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I think tonight we will have the opportunity to do the 
right thing. We will have an opportunity to set a clear, new standard 
on the gifts that House Members can accept. This does not preclude us 
from interacting in an effective and efficient way with our 
constituents, with those that are here to educate us on the issues, 
this just moves a whole set of concerns, issues that have been 
associated with how constituents and other individuals may interact 
with Congress.
  We are going to set a new standard. I applaud the Speaker for 
bringing this idea and this concept to the floor, and I think we have a 
real opportunity to say the new standard is we will accept no gifts. 
Our interaction with our constituents, our interaction with those that 
are here to educate us on the issues will deal purely with the 
substance of the various issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good opportunity to set a standard, to 
set a standard which perhaps the other body will also follow.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chris Shays, one of the true leaders of 
reform in this House.
  (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Gingrich amendment 
to House Resolution 250 and commend the gentleman from Georgia on his 
valuable contribution to this debate.
  A total gift ban, as proposed in the Gingrich amendment, makes sense. 
It's simple, straightforward and strong.
  The American people want gift reform and this amendment goes even 
further than the Senate-passed rule many of us have been advocating. I 
thank Speaker Gingrich for coming forward with this bold proposal, and 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. John Fox, another outstanding new Member of this 
body, another leader in reform since he arrived here 11 months ago.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, no one runs for this office to 
receive gifts from lobbyists. No one runs for reelection for that 
purpose. There is a public expectation we should not receive gifts, 
trips or entertainment. Our citizens do not. We need to help restore 
the confidence in the House by passing the Gingrich-Solomon amendment. 
No gifts mean no recordkeeping. The concept is overdue. Please vote for 
the amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 
10\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, it was good fortune in life as a college 
student to go to work for U.S. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, a man 
who literally wrote the book on ethics and government.
  He had a gift policy in the early 1960's, where he would not accept a 
gift of value more than $2.50. He ended up retuning almost everything. 
Sometimes it created embarrassment and a stir, but it was a standard 
that he lived by and people respected him for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this bipartisan effort. It holds 
Members of Congress to a higher standard, and we should be held to that 
standard. I have personally established a gift ban in my office and it 
has been in place for quite some time. This disclosure and the gift-ban 
provisions here are consistent with that, and I think a good measure 
for this House to follow. I am sorry it has taken us this long to bring 
this matter before us.
  Mr. Speaker, having said that, now that we have established ourselves 
a higher standard for Members of Congress, let me suggest that we are 
in the midst of a governmental crisis where we are holding Members of 
Congress to a lower standard. I make reference to the bill I 
introduced, H.R. 1221, ``No budget, no pay.''
  We sent home 800,000 Federal employees without pay while Members of 
Congress still receive their paychecks. We have said to those widows 
and dependents of veterans, ``You may not get a check December 1, but 
your Congressman will.'' We have said to our staff people, ``You may 
not get a check for your services, but your Congressman will.''
  Frankly, I think this is an outrage. Members of Congress have 
basically created a political crisis which could be solved in a 
heartbeat. I frankly think if we turned off the TV cameras and the 
machines printing congressional checks, this crisis would be over in 15 
minutes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, if I understand this correctly, there are 
three schools of thought driving the gift ban. The first is that some 
believe Members of Congress regularly, or even occasionally, sell their 
vote for a dinner or a golf game. If anyone seriously believes this, 
instead of bringing a bill to the floor, they should bring a complaint 
to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I do not think 
anyone who knows this institution or its Members could believe that 
this is the case.
  The second theory maintains that the problem is not reality; the 
problem is perception. They think that the people believe that we are 
easily bribed and we need to prohibit these bribes in order to placate 
the populace. In other words, they say that on a day when the 
Government is shut down over budget problems and we are on the brink of 
entering a conflict in Bosnia, the American people want us to go 
through this self-flagellation to restore the appearance of integrity. 
I am not sure that is what we ought to be spending our time on.
  The third school of thought maintains that our constituents will re-
elect us as long as we make a grand show of how terrible this 
institution or its Members are. If we make it clear to everyone that we 
are trying to clean this place up and that we are trying to somehow 
play the integrity guardian of this place, then they will never 
consider us politicians.
  Mr. Speaker, in the Bible it says that hypocrites stand on the street 
corner and pray out loud. Well, I think we ought to restore the 
confidence of the public by doing the public good.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not go to dinner with lobbyists. I have no interest 
in gifts. I do not play golf. I do not like to travel. More 
importantly, I do not take any PAC money. I do not take any money 
outside the district. I find it ridiculous that the suggestion here is 
that if Members take a $25 dinner from a lobbyist, they might be 
bribed, but if they accept $5,000 from a PAC, they will not be bribed.
  The only gift, for example, that would interest me right now is that 
we get our work done, and we can all go home. But, Mr. Speaker, I will 
vote for this legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the House my own experience in 
business, because we went through this same challenge in the companies 
that I founded and ran, and we finally decided that we could tinker 
around with different ways of trying to deal with the problem, if there 
is such a problem, of purchasing influence by suppliers through 
entertainment and gifts.

[[Page H 13090]]

  Mr. Speaker, if, in fact, my colleagues believe that there is an 
ethical vulnerability, and obviously that is what we are saying because 
we do have rules in this area already, then the way to really solve it, 
the way to really end it once and for all, is to create a zero-
tolerance standard, because what that does with a zero-tolerance 
standard is that it draws the brightest of bright lines. It makes it 
crystal clear on a daily basis. There is absolutely no question in 
anybody's mind and everyone knows what the standard is.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a standard of no gift, zero 
tolerance, no question. It is crystal clear. It is very simple. So long 
as Members take on the yoke of representation in this House, Members 
will know without any question, without any doubt, exactly what their 
responsibility in this area is with respect to the acceptance of gifts.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I support the amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same thing, and I hope it passes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be working on something that 
we can agree on today and really improve the quality of Government. It 
is not about whether Members can be bought. That is not the issue here. 
I respect the Members of this body. Nobody is going to be bought 
because they go to dinner.
  Mr. Speaker, if Members have a propensity to being bought, they can 
get bought no matter what rules we have. That is not the issue. The 
issue is to make this body more businesslike and reflect the value 
system that the American public wants us to adopt.
  Mr. Speaker, I came from South Carolina, the legislature there, where 
we had several people unfortunately go to jail because they did get 
bought. We had a lot of rules, but they still got bought. We looked at 
the situation in South Carolina and we said, ``Let us adopt bright-line 
rules and make people feel better about this institution.'' In South 
Carolina, legislators cannot take anything from a registered lobbyist.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues this: Government still works. 
Lobbyists do not need to give me anything to tell me about their 
business interest, to tell me what they would like to happen with their 
Government. We can sit down and we can talk and I will listen and I 
will do what I think is best for my district. We do not need money to 
change hands; we do not need gifts to change hands.
  Military officers, and I was one for 6\1/2\ years, cannot take 
anything from the contractors that they deal with.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is run this place in a more 
businesslike fashion and restore public trust. The issue is not about 
being bought. The issue is changing Congress to make sure that we live 
in a system that is very similar to the average, everyday American.
  The gift situation needs to be changed, and I congratulate the 
Speaker for putting in a zero-tolerance level as the standard. I 
congratulate the Democratic Party for helping us to get there to 
restore faith in our Congress. This is a small step forward, but it is 
a good step forward.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the gentleman from New 
York only has one speaker who will close?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time 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, I am glad we are at this point, 
finally, after all these years of effort on the part of many people on 
both sides of the aisle, and we are about to prohibit the acceptance of 
gifts. Mr. Speaker, I think it is right that we do so.
  I can only observe that we spent a good part of that 2\1/2\ years 
trying to hammer out a compromise between those who were opposed to 
doing anything and those of us who wanted a complete ban, and the 
compromise that we came up with it what is in the bill that is known as 
the Waldholtz bill before the House today.
  Had we known the Speaker was going to come forward with an amendment 
to take it down to zero, we would have embraced that in the first 
place. I am glad he has done it. I would point out that his bill, like 
the underlying bill, has many, many exceptions to it, including gifts 
from relatives and gifts based on personal friendship, and attendance 
at lobby-attended events and so forth, which are good exceptions. I 
support them.
  Mr. Speaker, I notice in the gentleman's provisions that he 
specifically left out of the list of exceptions, items of little 
intrinsic value, such as baseball caps and greeting cards. I am curious 
to know, and this is an actual question, not a rhetorical question, if 
that was intentional. If it was not intentional, I wonder is it would 
not be a good idea to fix it while we have a chance.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would say 
to the gentleman, it was not intentional and we would accept a 
unanimous consent to remove it.


modification offered by mr. bryant of texas to the amendment offered by 
                              mr. solomon

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if that is 
appropriate at this time, I ask unanimous consent to do that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, finally, I would say to the Members 
of the House it is not only that Lord that works in mysterious ways; it 
is the U.S. Congress. However we got here, I am glad we are here. We 
ought to vote for it and be proud of it as a bipartisan product and 
move on to other business.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. So the Chair can be clear about the impact 
of that unanimous consent request, the gentleman from New York will 
suspend one moment so we can make certain of the import of that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] I do not know if he has the bill there, but on page 9, lines 21 
and 22, there is a section that says, an item of nominal value such as 
a greeting card, baseball cap, or T-shirt.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Yes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. And that was the one the gentleman was talking about?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. That is the one I was referring to.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The other item was on page 7, which was 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 other recipient.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I would like to include that in the unanimous 
consent request, although I did not before.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The others were taken out for the same reason, 
unintentionally. If the gentleman from Texas wants to include that, we 
would accept it.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would do so and if it is not 
necessary to rearticulate that, I will leave it that way.
  Mr. SOLOMON. So that the Speaker and the Clerk understand, on page 7, 
we are removing lines 7 through 11, and on page 9 we are removing lines 
21 and 22. That is the Byrant unanimous consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands this to be the 
unanimous consent request. The Clerk will read what the Chair 
understands to be the modification that is being requested.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification offered by Mr. Bryant of Texas to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Solomon.
       In the second paragraph of the amendment offered by Mr. 
     Solomon of New York, strike out Instructions. On page 9, 
     strike lines 21 through 22.

  Mr. SOLOMON. And page 7, lines 7 through 11.


                             point of order

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

[[Page H 13091]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, is this being made available in writing 
to the Members?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk is attempting to report the 
modification proposed by the unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman reserves the right to object 
and the gentleman's point of order is noted.
  If the gentleman will suspend for a moment while the Chair verifies 
the unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I just sent it to the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will now rereport the modification 
that is the subject of the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Bryant], realizing that there is a reservation of 
objection by the gentleman from Hawaii.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification offered by Mr. Bryant of Texas to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
       Strike out the second paragraph of the instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, could we 
have it explained once more? Perhaps the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] or the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] would explain at 
this juncture precisely what it is that will be allowed or disallowed, 
whichever makes the most sense in terms of an explanation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to either the gentleman from Texas or the 
gentleman from New York.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Hawaii will suspend. The 
gentleman from Hawaii has the floor and may yield to whomever he may 
wish.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bryant] or the gentleman from New York, if he feels he can 
contribute to the explanation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is an explanation forthcoming about an 
important unanimous-consent request.

                              {time}  1815

  The gentleman from Hawaii has yielded to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the bill simply 
says that there will be no gifts accepted by any Member unless they 
fall under specific exemptions. Those exemptions are the same 
exemptions that are in the Senate rules, that are in the underlying 
rule which the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has amended, with 
two omissions that were inadvertent, one of those is home State 
products of minimal value for display or distribution, and the other is 
items of little intrinsic value such as baseball caps or greeting 
cards. Those were accidentally omitted from the list of exceptions and, 
accordingly, I made a unanimous consent request that they be added back 
into the list of exceptions thereby permitting Members to accept those 
without worrying about any problems.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, 
what concerns me here is, the reason I raised the question, the reason 
that I am doing this is that I am concerned that we are now arriving at 
a point where we are listing what is proscribed, or are we listing what 
is included in that which is accepted? If it is not specifically named 
in this legislation, does that mean then that we run the risk of having 
it considered something which is forbidden?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I am not sure what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
answered yes to. I want to make it very clear.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am exactly clear 
as to what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] just said. Mr. 
Solomon just said that in regard to what you just named--greeting cards 
and baseball caps--that will now be allowed. Presumably, had that not 
been included at this point, or the attempt made to include it at this 
point, you could get greeting cards which would be illegal. You could 
get baseball caps which would be illegal. The question I asked, and why 
I am reserving the right to object is, I am trying to find out--excuse 
me, not I--but if we do not list everything that is allowed, does that 
mean that that which does not appear in this specific list of 
exemptions may very well at some point be considered as being illegal 
and will we have to find that out as we go along?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, if I could even go one step further than 
that, I think the beauty of this amendment, prior to this unanimous-
consent request, was that it is a clear signal to the lobbyists, do not 
send anything. Then we do not have to decide. Then there is not a 
problem.
  Now we are saying that baseball caps and other items, other items of 
minimal value, now it becomes a judgment call not only on the giver but 
also the receiver as to what else may be included, which goes to the 
gentleman's point, but also to what is of minimal value.
  The beauty of this amendment, which was a gift ban, which exempted 
out the family and everything else, was that it not only was a 
suggestion to us but it was a clear signal to those who might want to 
give. I think that was the beauty of it. I would hope that the 
gentleman would continue to object.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have not objected yet.
  Mr. NUSSLE. If the gentleman does not, I might.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the editorial clarity, but 
I am trying to find out here from the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, who is now being advised on all sides, Mr. Speaker, I thank you 
for your patience in this, but I do think it is crucial to the 
understanding of the bill before us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). So that 
Members may have clarity of thought, the gentleman from Hawaii still 
controls the floor under a reservation of objection.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to 
the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the specific item which was 
inadvertently left out of the Gingrich amendment said, and it said this 
for several years in its text, items of little intrinsic value, such as 
baseball caps and greeting cards. Items of little intrinsic value, we 
want to leave that in there so there is no problem for any Member. That 
is all we are trying to do here. My unanimous-consent request, which 
has been approved by the other side, is simply to leave it in there.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, we are exchanging these words verbally 
right now. I am looking at the amendment to House Resolution 250, gift 
reform. The amendment retains exceptions for, and then it lists quite a 
number of items. If I understand it correctly, there is now a 
unanimous-consent request that language be added to that list of 
exemptions; am I correct?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
yes, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman repeat the language 
at this time, please.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to. If the gentleman has 
the underlying legislation, the proposal before him, on page 7, lines 7 
through 11, they are allowed under the underlying legislation. And the 
Gingrich amendment would prohibit them. This is what the underlying 
legislation allows.

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Reclaiming my time, is the gentleman referring to, 
on page 7, ``donations of products from the State.''----
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. ``That a Member represents that are intended 
primarily for promotional purposes, such 

[[Page H 13092]]
as display or free distribution, and are of minimal value to any 
individual recipient''?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
exactly. And then flip the page to page 9.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Page 9?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, lines 21 and 22.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. An item of nominal value such as greeting cards, 
baseball cap or T shirt.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Keep in mind ``such as.''
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. Now, is it the case that by inadvertence this 
was left out of the bill?
  Mr. SOLOMON. The underlying legislation, it was specifically left in. 
In other words, as an allowed gift. Under the Gingrich legislation, it 
was inadvertently prohibited.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, in the Gingrich legislation that is now 
before us, it was inadvertently left out; is that correct?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So if this is accepted, the unanimous consent 
request is accepted, those two elements that appeared in the underlying 
bill would now appear in the Gingrich legislation?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, 
it occurs to me that the ``such as'' may be illustrative, but is it 
supposed to be illustrative of the amount of money, when we say 
intrinsic value, are we talking about, is it your understanding, Mr. 
Solomon, that that has a dollar value, when the phrase intrinsic value 
is utilized to describe----
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, minimal, nominal value, yes.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] our Speaker, 
has to leave in about 3 minutes. There are 3\1/2\ minutes remaining in 
the debate.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous-consent 
request for the time being.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's request is withdrawn for the 
time being.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, on opening day the Speaker of this House 
directed the Republican Members of this House to reform this Congress. 
We put through profound changes, such as shrinking the number of 
committees, subcommittees, eliminating proxy voting and opening up 
sunshine for these committees. He also directed us to continue the 
reforms of this House. This is one of them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich], the great Speaker of this House.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for 
the way he handled this this afternoon and enabled Members to 
participate in a bipartisan manner.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], because the 
truth is when we first drafted this we did not intend to drop out the T 
shirt part in particular. Members who go and they try to help with 
charities and a lot of other things. I appreciate his bringing it to 
our attention. I hope when I am done he can actually finish working 
that out with the gentleman from Hawaii and really make that unanimous-
consent request a second time.
  I also thought, however, that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest] had a very important point. I want to mention here to the 
House the testimony I made a few days ago to the House Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight about establishing a bipartisan 
commission to look at the entire fabric of power in the information 
age, from lobbying to gifts to campaign financing to party financing to 
independent expenditures, because the truth is, we can ban gifts and 
then we end up with a PAC giving $5,000. We can outlaw PAC's and then 
we end up with an independent expenditure of $500,000. There are all 
sorts of things that go on in the information age that we do not record 
very well, we do not understand very well. And we are not going to have 
any one or two reforms that automatically improve it.
  I do believe that I had an obligation to offer this amendment. Let me 
explain why. I think that the Speaker has an obligation to try to 
protect all the Members of the House. I was told by several members of 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and several former 
members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that the 
rules adopted by the Senate were clearly unenforceable and would in the 
end end up with Members by the most innocent of just forgetting things 
over the course of an entire year traveling back and forth to home, the 
kind of schedules we keep, inadvertently ending up in the kind of 
violations that would for the first time cause real problems and lead 
Members to innocently end up either being entrapped or finding 
themselves in trouble they had no notion of.
  The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], who had been for many years our 
ranking member, made the point that we have never actually had an 
ethics case involving a gift. So at one level one can say, why are we 
changing it? But if we are going to change it in the direction that the 
Senate chose, then I think frankly we have an obligation to change it 
decisively and clearly.

  I just think that we have to recognize that there is bipartisan 
support for trying to figure out how should we operate. We win an 
election. We are here for 2 years. We serve the people. What should the 
standards be?
  My conclusion was that the simplest, the cleanest and the clearest 
standard was to say, no gifts. That may well mean what the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] was saying a while ago, we may literally 
have to set up a repository that anonymous gifts end up at go to a 
charity or to go somewhere because people literally will drop things 
off. But the rule ought to be, no gifts. Personal friends, yes, Members 
have every right to have a personal life. Family, yes, we hope Members 
have a family life. We want you to, despite the recent schedule.
  But the fact is that there is a clear line and rather than have all 
sorts of little nuances and regulations and red tape, I would urge my 
colleagues to vote for this amendment to end accepting gifts from 
lobbyists and others who give them the gift because they are a Member 
of Congress. There is no way around it. They did not get the gift 
before they were elected, they are not going to get the gift after they 
leave. That is different from personal friends and it is different from 
family, and I think it is the right thing, to just end it and take this 
as step one.
  Then I hope the House will join me before the year is out in voting 
for a bipartisan commission to look at the totality of what we have to 
do to clean up this system and make it fair for the average American.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members, at this 
point the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has one-half minute 
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  The Chair will now entertain the unanimous-consent request.


Modification Offered by Mr. Bryant of Texas to the Amendment Offered by 
                              Mr. Solomon

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
language found at page 7, lines 1 through 5, and page 9, lines 15 and 
16, be reintroduced as exceptions.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is on the introduced bill and 
not on the bill before us. The gentleman should be on the Gingrich 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the proposed 
modification.

       Modification offered by Mr. Bryant of Texas to the 
     Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Strike out the second 
     paragraph of the amendment.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we do 
what the Clerk just read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.

[[Page H 13093]]

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, is there any way, under the 
rule reported out, that the House could amend the pending amendment 
short of a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Not short of a unanimous-consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So that no amendment would be allowed?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Only by unanimous consent.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether with the 
objection the possibility of the two items mentioned by the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] in response to the request from the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] are now out of the Gingrich amendment 
with respect to that which appears in the underlying bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not at liberty to interpret the 
modification that was suggested.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, and the 
reason I am asking is that it may determine how I will vote and, 
perhaps, others will vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
Hawaii that the modification was not agreed to by unanimous consent.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Does that mean, any further parliamentary inquiry 
because I want to understand the meaning of it, and I think I am 
entitled to that before I vote, I am entitled to understand it. If 
everybody else in the room understands it, that is fine; I intend to 
have a full understanding before I vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the time by 2 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to make sure all heard 
the unanimous-consent request. Will the gentleman restate it?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. It is to extend the time of debate another 2 
minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. To be controlled by? Equally divided?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. By me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Hawaii?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, we would not 
object to the time being extended for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost] or for myself, but we could not do it for the gentleman from 
Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I think I need to get a clear 
understanding. I will do it under the parliamentary inquiry, but I 
thought it might be more in order if there was an opportunity for 
members to maybe, perhaps, discuss it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Then the gentleman from Hawaii has a 
parliamentary inquiry that is being entertained by the Chair?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I will stay with the parliamentary 
inquiry, and I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman withdraws his unanimous-
consent request.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is that if 
I, or anybody else on the floor, wishes to vote for a bill which 
contains the two elements as enunciated by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], would I then 
vote against the Gingrich proposal as presently before the body and 
then vote, should that fail, for the underlying legislation? If I 
wanted to vote for a bill which contained all of the exemptions listed 
in the underlying bill, minus those two, which I believe would have 
been added had there not been objection to the unanimous-consent 
request made by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman, given 
a request for regular order, that the gentleman is not stating a proper 
parliamentary inquiry, but the Chair understands his dilemma. The Chair 
cannot advise the Member as to the import of this amendment. The Chair 
can only say it is a modification by unanimous consent.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear you.
  Mr. Speaker, I am doing my best to make a parliamentary inquiry 
within the boundaries of the rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A parliamentary inquiry is being made by the 
gentleman from Hawaii. The Chair will entertain that first, and then 
will take up any others.
  The Chair would advise the gentleman from Hawaii that the Chair is 
not at liberty to interpret the import of any amendments currently 
pending. The Chair will simply say that a modification was proposed by 
unanimous-consent request, objection was heard, so the underlying 
amendment remains the same as it was debated now on the floor.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has one-half minute 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has yielded back.
  It may answer the gentleman from Hawaii's parliamentary inquiry to 
have the gentleman from New York use that one-half minute.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, maybe I did not state it correctly, and 
I will make a further parliamentary inquiry then. There are obviously 
Members who want to vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will indulge the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] for one more inquiry.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are Members who 
are now prepared to vote. I am glad they have all received wisdom. I do 
not pretend to have it.
  My parliamentary inquiry is:
  Should the Gingrich proposal as presently before us be defeated, 
would we then be voting on the underlying legislation which would 
contain the two elements which do not now exist, as I understand it, in 
the Gingrich proposal because the unanimous-consent was objected to?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
pending Solomon amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 2, line 3, strike 
     ``(1)'' and strike lines 6 through 15.
       Page 7, strike lines 1 through 5, and page 9, strike lines 
     15 through 16 and redesignate paragraphs (13) through (22) as 
     paragraphs (12) through (21).
       Page 10, line 9, insert a period after ``individual'' and 
     strike ``if others'' and all that follows through line 12.
       Page 13, beginning in line 24 strike ``3 days exclusive of 
     travel time within the United States'' and insert ``4 days 
     within the United States''.
       Page 14, insert a period after ``employee'' in line 17 and 
     strike ``subject to'' and all that follows through line 23.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the reading). The Chair would advise 
the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] that the Clerk is reading 
the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] as the designee of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I ask the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] to 
listen to my parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that in the Waldholtz legislation 
pending before us there is an exception which allows Members to accept 
nominal values such as greeting cards, baseball caps, and T-shirts? The 
answer is yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not at liberty to interpret the 
underlying amendment, but the gentleman is the offeror of the 
amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Well then, Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that in the 
Gingrich amendment it strikes the exception which allows the gentleman 
from Hawaii to accept a T-shirt?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under the new regime have we 
now debated T-shirts more than we have debated the defense budget 
today?

[[Page H 13094]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The Chair at this point would advise Members that the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon] has one-half minute remaining in the debate and 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has yielded back the balance of 
his time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
conclude.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us is the Gingrich amendment which 
does strike the exception which allows Members to accept T-shirts, 
greeting cards. If the Gingrich amendment passes, it will ban all gifts 
except those exceptions allowed in the underlying legislation. I would 
urge Members to vote for the Gingrich amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 422, 
noes 8, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 808]

                               AYES--422

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--8

     Fattah
     Hastings (FL)
     King
     Murtha
     Myers
     Rahall
     Towns
     Williams

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Fields (LA)
     Tucker
       

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. RAHALL and Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SMITH of Michigan, SANFORD, and LaFALCE changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 268, the previous question is ordered on the 
resolution, as amended.
  The question is on the resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 422, 
noes 6, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 809]

                               AYES--422

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss

[[Page H 13095]]

     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--6

     Fattah
     Goodling
     King
     Myers
     Towns
     Williams

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Fields (LA)
     Murtha
     Sabo
     Tucker

                              {time}  1919

  So, the resolution, as amended was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________