[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 6, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H208-H211]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       HOUSE GIFT RULE AMENDMENT

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 5 
and as the designee of the majority leader, I offer a resolution (H. 
Res. 9) amending clause 5 of rule XXVI, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H209]]

                               H. Res. 9

       Resolved, That subparagraph (1) of clause 5(a) of rule XXVI 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``A Member''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subdivision:
       ``(B) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee of the House may accept a gift (other than cash 
     or cash equivalent) that the Member, Delegate, Resident 
     Commissioner, 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. A gift having a value of less than $10 does 
     not count toward the $100 annual limit. Formal recordkeeping 
     is not required by this subdivision, but a Member, Delegate, 
     Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House 
     shall make a good faith effort to comply with this 
     subdivision.''.

  Mr. HANSEN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 5, 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Berman) each will control 30 minutes as the designee of their 
respective leaders.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution which would amend 
the House gift rule so as to conform to the gift rule that has been in 
effect in the Senate since the beginning of 1996.
  Specifically, this resolution would amend the rule so as to allow 
Members and staff to accept any gift having a value of less than $50 
and a cumulative value from any one source in the calendar year of less 
than $100. Gifts having a value of less than $10 would not count toward 
the annual $100 limit. Formal recordkeeping is not required by the 
provision, but Members and staff are required to, in a good faith 
effort, comply with the provision.
  As chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the 
past 2 years, I have learned more than I ever wanted to know about the 
gift rule that the House approved in 1995.

                              {time}  1630

  Based on my experience, I am entirely convinced of the need of the 
House to make this change, and I think just about everyone else who has 
had to deal with this rule would feel the same way.
  The purpose of this resolution is straightforward. It is to simplify 
the gift rule and to make it clear and easier to apply, while still 
prohibiting the acceptance of gifts that raise genuine ethical 
concerns. The complexity of the current rule is apparent on its face, 
especially by comparison with the previous House gift rules. The 
current rule contains about 50 clauses and covers about 14 pages in the 
official House rules book. In contrast, the previous gift rule had only 
one clause.
  In my judgment, the most serious flaw in the current gift rule is 
this: The fact is that under the current rule, modest and inexpensive 
gifts, the gifts that raise the least ethical concern, are governed by 
the most vague and complex provision of the rule. I think all of us 
have had this experience. Someone gives you something or sends you some 
small thing, like a pen, a framed picture, a box of candy, and the 
first question that pops in your mind is, can I accept this under the 
gift rule?
  The gift rule sets out roughly 23 categories of acceptable gifts, but 
the problem is that all of these are descriptive categories. None of 
them is keyed to a particular dollar amount. What is more, many of 
these categories include multiple requirements, including many things 
that call for a subjective judgment. For example, depending on the 
number of circumstances, a member or staffer can violate the rule by 
accepting a free hamburger or hot dog at an event. Other provisions of 
the rule require Members and staff to make a recent determination on, 
for example, whether an item offered is ``nominal value'' or 
``commemorative in nature,'' or whether a gift has been offered to them 
on the basis of a personal friendship, rather than because of one's 
position with the House.
  The overall result of the current rule is that Members and staff 
spend a grossly disproportionate amount of time and effort trying to 
decide whether these relatively modest, inexpensive gifts are 
acceptable under the rule. I think all of us, Members as well as staff, 
have a whole lot more important things to do than sit around deciding 
whether or not a gift of a pie or a can of popcorn is acceptable.
  Furthermore, inadvertent violations of these provisions of the gift 
rule are practically inevitable, and it is only a matter of time before 
someone will be hauled before the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct for violating one of these principles when they are totally 
innocent.
  The committee and its staff have always been available to answer 
questions on the gift rule. We have given briefings on the rule, we 
have issued pink sheets, and the committee staff has taken literally 
thousands and thousands of calls on the gift rule over the last few 
years. Also, in the last Congress alone, the Congress issued over 1,500 
private advisory opinions to Members and staff and others dealing with 
the gift rule.
  The point here is not the way the ethics rules should work. One 
should not need to have a lawyer at one's side at the time to tell us 
what is and what is not allowable under the gift rule. Each of us has a 
solemn obligation to know and adhere to the ethics rules and standards 
of the House, and this is no matter how complex these rules and 
standards may be. Each of us also has an obligation to see that our 
staff know and adhere to the rules.
  But I suggest that we collectively also have an obligation to 
ourselves and our staff to make sure that the rules and standards are, 
to the extent possible, clear, understandable, and reasonable.
  The resolution now before us is an important step in adding clarity 
and certainty to the House gift rule. With this change, we would not 
need to bother with all the complex and technical gift rule provisions 
that I have referred to. On any gift that one is offered, including a 
meal or a ticket to an event, one only needs to ask two questions. One, 
is the gift value less than $50; and two, have I accepted anything else 
from this source this year?
  The 23 exceptions to the gift rule that now exist would continue in 
force, but the effect of this amendment would be to regulate those 
provisions to secondary importance, at least insofar as relatively 
inexpensive meals and other gifts are concerned.
  As I noted in the beginning of this statement, the gift rule 
provision reflected in this resolution has been in effect in the Senate 
for the past 3 years. The information available to us is that the 
Senate gift rule is working well and that compliance is being attained.
  Our understanding is that the Senate Members and the staff are being 
cautious to ensure that the clear dollar limits in this provision are 
not exceeded. We expected that if this resolution is approved, the 
experience of the House will be the same.
  In implementing this gift rule provision over the past 3 years, the 
Senate Select Committee on Ethics has developed a number of rules of 
construction. The intention of this resolution is that the same rules 
of construction will apply in the House as well, unless and until the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct elects to make any changes 
in them. There are five rules of construction that are especially 
important.
  First, a gift received from an individual affiliated with an 
organization such as a member of a law firm or an employee of a new 
corporation counts against the annual gift limitation of both the 
individual and the organization. So if an employee of a lobbying firm 
buys a staffer a $15 lunch, both the employee and the firm will be 
considered the ``source'' of the meal and the staffer's annual gift 
limit for both will be reduced accordingly.
  Second, a Member or staffer may not buy down the value of a gift to 
bring it within the dollar limitation of the provision. So, for 
example, an individual who is offered a gift with a value of $55 may 
not accept the gift simply by paying the offerer $6. However, when an 
individual is offered a gift that is ``naturally divisible'' such as 
tickets to an event, he may accept one item less

[[Page H210]]

than $50 and either pay market value or decline the others.
  Third, where a Member or staffer is offered multiple items at any one 
time, each of which is worth less than $50 individually, the gift being 
offered is deemed to be the aggregate of all of the items.
  Fourth, for the purpose of simplicity, tax and gratuities are 
excluded in determining the value of any gift.
  Finally, to repeatedly accept gifts valued at under $10 from a source 
would violate the spirit of the rule and hence be impermissible.
  Even with the adoption of this resolution, there will be some 
differences in the provisions of the House and the Senate. However, the 
remaining differences are relatively minor, so I see no real need to 
attempt to reconcile these differences.
  There are also some areas where the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct has decided gift rule questions differently from the 
Senate. For example, on the valuation of tickets to a sky box or an 
executive suite, we have said that as a general rule, these tickets are 
to be valued at the face price of the highest individually priced 
ticket for the event. In contrast, the Senate committee has allowed a 
lower value in at least some circumstances.
  These differences between the House and Senate will also continue 
until one or both committees makes a change.
  But with the passage of this resolution, the major difference between 
the House and Senate gift rule will be eliminated. This is a common-
sense approach. It will add some much-needed clarity and certainty to 
the gift rule. In my judgment, it will also reduce the possibility that 
a Member or staffer will be subject to disciplinary action for what 
amounts to failing to be familiar with the roughly 50 clauses of the 
current rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this resolution, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend and esteemed colleague, the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), has described in detail the effects 
and provisions of this amendment that he and I are sponsoring to the 
existing rules, and along with the leadership of both of our parties in 
this House. I only wanted to add a couple of points.
  Under this proposal, the rule provides a limit on gifts from any one 
source of $50 individually, $100 cumulatively. I ask the Members to 
recall that 2 years ago, the rule was at the indefensibly high level of 
$250, and we allowed individual gifts of up to $100. It excluded all 
limits on local meals and all personal hospitality. Setting limits at 
the Senate standard of $50 and a cumulative value from any source of 
$100, is a vast improvement, and groups like Common Cause and Public 
Citizen said in November of 1995 just that when the Committee on Rules 
first proposed that the House adopt the Senate standard.
  At that time Ann McBride, President of Common Cause, told the 
Committee on Rules, ``We strongly urge you to report to the floor the 
same gift and travel rules adopted by the Senate. Passage of this rule, 
which is just what we are doing now, would be an important step towards 
restoring the basic integrity of this institution, restoring public 
confidence in Congress, and curbing Washington's influence money 
culture.''
  Also, at those same hearings, Joan Claybrook of the Ralph Nader group 
Public Citizen, made these comments in her testimony before the 
Committee on Rules on a proposal identical to the one we have before us 
now. ``We support the adoption of a rule identical to that approved by 
the Senate. We also believe that there is a significant advantage in 
having the same rules apply to the House and the Senate. The more 
differences there are between the Chambers, the more difficult it will 
be for lobbyists and the general public to understand what is 
permissible and what is not in a given circumstance.''
  Not one witness at the Committee on Rules's public hearings espoused 
the present ``zero tolerance'' rule which was adopted by floor 
amendment to the Committee on Rules package. Adopting the Senate 
standard will greatly simplify the House rule, and I concur with Ms. 
Claybrook that this action will greatly increase understanding of and 
compliance with the rule, and that should be our objective.
  The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which I have the 
privilege of being the ranking minority member of, with the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Hansen), our chairman, unanimously voted to support this 
recommendation. The impacts on our committee's resources will be 
benefited tremendously, and we will be able to focus on the serious 
issues with this kind of a rules change.
  I strongly urge that the House join these reform organizations, the 
leadership of both of our parties, and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen) in adopting this modification.
  I just want to make one final comment. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Hansen), after 14 years of membership and leadership on 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is going off for this 
Congress; and while I have had a chance to work with him for only the 
past 2 of those years, I just want to say in the most sincere possible 
fashion that it has been a pleasure and an honor to work with him and 
under his leadership.
  He has done a tremendous job, I think, in restoring the sense of 
bipartisan confidence in the process. I can say, never once in the 
year-and-a-half since the moratorium ended and our committee has been 
functioning did the Democrats ever have to caucus as a party on that 
committee. Everything was done by consensus in a bipartisan and 
nonpartisan fashion.
  We will miss the gentleman greatly. We look forward to working with a 
very distinguished member of the committee these past 2 years who will 
be taking over as Chair, but we will see the gentleman around and 
cannot wait to bring you before the committee sometime.
  As ranking member of the Committee on Standards, I am completely 
convinced that amending the House gift rule to make it conform to the 
Senate standard is both in the interest of sound public policy and in 
the interest of the effective fulfillment by the Committee of its 
important responsibilities.
  Under the bill I have introduced with my valued colleague Jim Hansen, 
the House gift rule would still be vastly more restrictive than the 
pre-1996 House rule. That rule set a limit on gifts from any one source 
at the indefensibly high figure of $250, and allowed individual gifts 
up to $100. Just as bad, the old rule completely excluded from the 
limit all local meals, and all personal hospitality.
  Clearly, setting limits at the Senate standard of $50 and a 
cumulative value from any source of $100 is a vast improvement--as 
groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen said in November of 1995, 
when the Rules Committee first proposed that the House adopt the Senate 
standard.
  At that time, Ann McBride, President of Common Cause told the Rules 
Committee, ``We strongly urge you to report to the Floor the same gift 
and travel rules adopted by the Senate. . . . Passage of this rule 
would be an important step toward restoring the basic integrity of the 
institution, restoring public confidence in Congress and curbing 
Washington's influence money culture.''
  Also at those hearings, Joan Claybrook, of the Ralph Nader group 
Public Citizen, made these comments in her testimony before the Rules 
Committee: ``We support the adoption of a rule identical to that 
approved by the Senate. . . . We also believe that there is a 
significant advantage in having the same rules apply to the House and 
the Senate. The more differences there are between the chambers, the 
more difficult it will be for lobbyists and the general public to 
understand what is permissible and what is not in a given 
circumstance.''
  Not one witness at the Rules Committee's public hearings espoused the 
present ``zero tolerance'' rule which was adopted by Floor amendment to 
the Rules Committee package.
  Adopting the Senate standard will greatly simplify the House rule and 
I concur with Ms. Claybrook that this action will greatly increase 
understanding of--and compliance with--the rule.
  And that should be our objective.
  Let me put this in terms of the expenditure of time and effort by the 
members and staff of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. An 
enormous percentage of the Committee's resources are devoted to 
answering innumerable questions about the current gift rule.
  In many cases, those questions are raised by Members and their staffs 
because they hope to avoid the hurt feelings and the embarrassment that 
occur when they have to tell constituents and other outside groups that 
they cannot accept even small gifts extended as courtesies. Huge 
numbers of these questions would be eliminated--flat out eliminated--if 
we said that acceptance of gifts under $50 are no longer a concern.
  And if we did so, we could focus the Committee's attention where it 
really belongs. Not

[[Page H211]]

on a free lunch, tendered by a group that wants to talk to one of us 
(or one of our staff members) away from ringing phones and office 
interruptions in a place where we can hear ourselves think--but rather 
on real problems which may exist and which we need to address.
  The present zero tolerance rule mistakenly directs our attention to 
what some unfairly assume is the per se appearance of impropriety 
whenever a gift is tendered. I reject that assumption and I contend 
that it detracts from the Committee's proper function--which is to 
counsel our colleagues against activities which could constitute real 
impropriety and which we must marshal our resources to combat.
  My view of each and every one of you is that you want to conduct 
yourselves ethically. I assume the best, not the worst, about everyone 
in this body.
  And my view of lobbyists is that they perform an important and 
honorable function for us in the legislative branch, bringing us 
information about how bills may affect our constituents and our society 
as a whole. I do not assume that something illicit occurs every time a 
Member--or his or her staff--gets together with a lobbyist. But I do 
believe that it is our task as Members of the House of Representatives 
to make sure that we seek to understand the consequences of legislation 
for all Americans--not just the well-heeled, to make sure that we open 
our doors and our ears to the dedicated advocates who plead the case of 
the poor and disadvantaged.
  Our present gift rule does nothing, absolutely nothing, to ensure 
that this House is accessible to all, but it does create problems which 
I, as ranking members of the Committee on Standards, believe we can 
avoid by adopting the Senate standard.
  At our last meeting, my colleagues on the committee voted unanimously 
to endorse this rules change. We are telling you that this rules change 
is appropriate and it is sound. Please join us in approving it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me thank my good friend from California for the very kind words. 
It has been a real pleasure for me to work with the gentleman, and the 
Democrats and the Republicans. I think we did what the House asked us 
to do when we were given this charge, and I thank the gentleman for the 
great work that he has done. He has really been a stalwart and an 
extremely fine member.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote for a new gift ban 
rule today not for themselves, but for their Nation's Capital. For 
Members, the gift ban represents the loss of trivial token gifts. For 
the District of Columbia, the gift ban has caused millions of dollars 
in lost revenue.
  The District is just now emerging from a financial crisis that 
brought insolvency to the Nation's Capital. The Congress made great 
strides last Congress to hasten the District's recovery with the 
passage of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
Improvement Act (the Revitalization Act) in 1997. Last Saturday, a new, 
tough, fiscally prudent mayor and new City Council took the oath of 
office, ushering in new era in the District's political culture. Most 
importantly, downtown D.C. is coming back and is increasingly alive 
with people taking advantage of new reasons to go to downtown. Despite 
these great strides, however, the District's recovery remains in its 
infancy. District revenues are significantly dependent on tax receipts 
from downtown businesses. Moreover, these revenues have been flat, 
partly because of the effect of the gift ban. Small retail businesses 
have been particularly hurt. However, the most prominent example of the 
effect of the gift ban is the new MCI Center, the centerpiece of the 
revitalization of downtown D.C. Abe Pollin, the owner of the Washington 
Wizards, Capitals, and Mystics did the unheard of when he invested $220 
million of his own money into the construction of an arena in downtown 
D.C. when the District was insolvent and at its lowest point. In making 
this commitment to the city, Pollin relied in part on the gift rule in 
effect at the time that allowed tickets to be accepted as gifts. The 
MCI Center is an unusual example of a sports arena that has been built 
with private rather than public funds. It is unfair and unfortunate to 
have an abrupt change penalizing a private entrepreneur who has 
willingly taken on what in most jurisdictions is viewed as a public 
responsibility.
  Private economic development is the key to maintaining the solvency 
of the District. Harmonizing the House gift rule with the Senate rule 
does not cost the Congress anything, but this change can mean millions 
to the city. If the Congress can't help us, at the very least, it 
should not hurt us. There is more than one way for the House to help 
the District. A reasonable gift ban would be a cost-free way for the 
Congress to help meet its obligation to continue to assist the recovery 
of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose amending House 
rule to increase the amount of gifts a member of Congress or their 
employees may receive, and am disappointed a recorded vote was not 
requested so that members would be held accountable to taxpayers for 
their vote.
  There is a reason the institution of Congress is held in such low 
esteem by the American public: people simply don't believe we do the 
right things for the right reason, and that we are here to look out for 
our own interests rather than those of our constituents.
  My experience is that that is not the case. But clearly we have a 
credibility problem and a trust problem. Increasing the gifts we can 
receive only reinforces that lack of trust and makes it harder for us 
to lead.
  Congress needs to lead by example. We didn't today.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to section 3 of House 
Resolution 5, the resolution is considered read for amendment, and the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

                          ____________________