[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.
____________________