[House Report 104-886]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                 Union Calendar No. 488
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-886
_______________________________________________________________________


 
           SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

                               __________

                                A REPORT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                     STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




January 2, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


               COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

  NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut, 
             Chairman
JIM McDERMOTT, Ranking Minority Member  JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland            PORTER J. GOSS, Florida
NANCY PELOSI, California                DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania          STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
 Theodore J. Van Der Meid, Chief 
              Counsel
   Virginia H. Johnson, Counsel
     David H. Laufman, Counsel
      Bernard Raimo, Counsel
      John E. Vargo, Counsel
  Charles J. Willoughby, Counsel
 Margarita Mestre, Staff Assistant
 Christine S. Weinstein, Systems 
           Administrator
   Joanne White, Administrative 
             Assistant
                                     

                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                          House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                   Washington, DC, January 2, 1997.
Hon. Robin Carle,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Carle: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of Rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, I hereby submit to the 
House a report on the activities of the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct for the 104th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                          Nancy L. Johnson,
                                                        Chairwoman.


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
   I. Introduction....................................................1
  II. Advice and Education............................................3
 III. Financial Disclosure............................................6
  IV. Investigations..................................................6
   V. Pending Committee Business.....................................25

                                APPENDIX

   A. Advisory memoranda issued by Committee on Standards of Official 
      Conduct during the 104th Congress..............................27
   B. December 21, 1996, Statement of Alleged Violation issued in the 
      Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich.........................63
   C. September 12, 1996, Statement of Alleged Violation issued in the 
      Matter of Representative Barbara-Rose Collins..................78


                                                 Union Calendar No. 488
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-886
_______________________________________________________________________



           SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
                                _______
                                

January 2, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mrs. Johnson, from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                            I. Introduction

    House Rule XI, Clause 1(d), requires each committee to 
submit to the House, not later than January 2 of each odd-
numbered year, a report on the activities of that committee 
under that rule and House Rule X during the Congress ending on 
January 3 of that year.
    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct (``Committee'') is defined in House Rule X, Clauses 
1(p) and 4(e), which state as follows:

               Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

                          Rule X, Clause 1(p)

           (1) Measures relating to the Code of Conduct. In 
        addition to its legislative jurisdiction under the 
        preceding provision of this paragraph (and its general 
        oversight function under clause 2(b)(1)), the committee 
        shall have the functions with respect to 
        recommendations, studies, investigations, and reports 
        which are provided for in clause 4(e), and the 
        functions designated in titles I and V of the Ethics in 
        Government Act of 1978 and sections 7342, 7351, and 
        7353 of title 5, United States Code.

                          Rule X, Clause 4(e)

          (1) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is 
        authorized: (A) to recommend to the House from time to 
        time such administrative actions as it may deem 
        appropriate to establish or enforce standards of 
        official conduct for Members, officers, and employees 
        of the House, and any letter of reproval or other 
        administrative action of the committee pursuant to an 
        investigation under subdivision (B) shall be issued or 
        implemented as a part of a report required by such 
        subdivision; (B) to investigate, subject to 
        subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, any alleged 
        violation, by a Member, officer, or employee of the 
        House, of the Code of Official Conduct or of any law, 
        rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct 
        applicable to the conduct of such Member, officer, or 
        employee in the performance of his duties or the 
        discharge of his responsibilities, and after notice and 
        hearing (unless the right to a hearing is waived by the 
        Member, officer, or employee), shall report to the 
        House its findings of fact and recommendations, if any, 
        upon the final disposition of any such investigation, 
        and such action as the committee may deem appropriate 
        in the circumstances; (C) to report to the appropriate 
        Federal or State authorities, with the approval of the 
        House, any substantial evidence of a violation, by a 
        Member, officer, or employee of the House, of any law 
        applicable to the performance of his duties or the 
        discharge of his responsibilities, which may have been 
        disclosed in a committee investigation; (D) to give 
        consideration to the request of any Member, officer, or 
        employee of the House for an advisory opinion with 
        respect to the general propriety of any current or 
        proposed conduct of such Member, officer, or employee 
        and, with appropriate deletions to assure the privacy 
        of the individual concerned, to publish such opinion 
        for the guidance of other Members, officers, and 
        employees of the House; and (E) to give consideration 
        to the request of any Member, officer, or employee of 
        the House for a written waiver in exceptional 
        circumstances with respect to clause 4 of rule XLIII.
          (2)(A) No resolution, report, recommendation, or 
        advisory opinion relating to the official conduct of a 
        Member, officer, or employee of the House shall be made 
        by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and 
        no investigation of such conduct shall be undertaken by 
        such committee, unless approved by the affirmative vote 
        of a majority of the members of the committee.
          (B) Except in the case of an investigation undertaken 
        by the committee on its own initiative, the committee 
        may undertake an investigation relating to the official 
        conduct of an individual Member, officer, or employee 
        of the House of Representatives only--
          (i) upon receipt of a complaint, in writing and under 
        oath, made by or submitted to a Member of the House and 
        transmitted to the committee by such Member, or
          (ii) upon receipt of a complaint, in writing and 
        under oath, directly from an individual not a Member of 
        the House if the committee finds that such complaint 
        has been submitted by such individual to not less than 
        three Members of the House who have refused, in 
        writing, to transmit such complaint to the committee.
          (C) No investigation shall be undertaken by the 
        committee of any alleged violation of a law, rule, 
        regulation, or standard of conduct not in effect at the 
        time of the alleged violation; nor shall any 
        investigation be undertaken by the committee of any 
        alleged violation which occurred before the third 
        previous Congress unless the committee determines that 
        the alleged violation is directly related to any 
        alleged violation which occurred in a more recent 
        Congress.
          (D) A member of the committee shall be ineligible to 
        participate, as a member of the committee, in any 
        committee proceeding relating to his or her official 
        conduct. In any case in which a member of the committee 
        is ineligible to act as a member of the committee under 
        the preceding sentence, the Speaker of the House shall 
        designate a Member of the House from the same political 
        party as the ineligible member of the committee to act 
        as a member of the committee in any committee 
        proceeding relating to the official conduct of such 
        ineligible member.
          (E) A member of the committee may disqualify himself 
        from participating in any investigation of the conduct 
        of a Member, officer, or employee of the House upon the 
        submission in writing and under oath of an affidavit of 
        disqualification stating that he cannot render an 
        impartial and unbiased decision in the case in which he 
        seeks to disqualify himself. If the Committee approves 
        and accepts such an affidavit of disqualification, the 
        chairman shall so notify the Speaker and request the 
        Speaker to designate a Member of the House from the 
        same political party as the disqualifying member of the 
        committee to act as a member of the committee in any 
        committee proceeding relating to such investigation.
          (F) No information or testimony received, or the 
        contents of a complaint or the fact of its filing, 
        shall be publicly disclosed by any Committee or staff 
        member unless specifically authorized in each instance 
        by a vote of the full Committee.

    The Committee was organized on February 9, 1995. The full 
Committee held 65 meetings during 1995 and 34 meetings in 1996. 
In addition, an Investigative Subcommittee regarding 
Representative Barbara-Rose Collins met 20 times during 1996, 
and an Investigative Subcommittee regarding Representative Newt 
Gingrich met 40 times during 1996.

                        II. Advice and Education

    The Committee offers educational programs and publications 
to inform House Members, officers, and employees of the 
requirements of the various standards, rules, and laws that 
govern their conduct. Additionally, the Committee responds to 
specific requests for advice from Members, officers, and 
employees on matters relating to the Code of Official Conduct 
and other laws, rules, and regulations applicable to them in 
the conduct of their offices and the discharge of their 
official responsibilities. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 
(``Act'') guarantees that no one may be investigated by the 
Committee on the basis of information provided to the Committee 
while seeking an opinion about proposed conduct. In that 
regard, the Act mandated that a separate Office of Advice and 
Education be established within the Committee in 1990. The 
Committee maintains the confidentiality of its advice, and by 
law and Committee rule, anyone who relies in good faith on a 
written opinion of the Committee subsequently may not be 
investigated by the Committee concerning the conduct addressed 
in the opinion. Additionally, courts will consider reliance on 
a Committee opinion a defense to prosecution by the Department 
of Justice.
    During the 104th Congress, the Committee issued a record 
number of advisory opinions for Members, officers and 
employees. The increase in requests for advisory opinions was 
due to the large number of new staff resulting from the change 
in majority control of the House, and to the adoption of House 
Rule 52, banning most gifts, which became effective January 1, 
1996. Section 6 of Rule 52 states that ``[a]ll the provisions 
of the [gift rule] shall be interpreted and enforced solely by 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,'' and 
authorizes the Committee to ``issue guidance on any matter 
contained in this rule.''
    The Committee devoted many meetings to developing 
compliance guidance for Members regarding the rules changes, 
and carried out an aggressive program to inform all Members, 
officers, and employees about the terms and conditions of the 
new gift rule and the Committee's interpretations of the rule. 
The Committee's initial advisory memorandum of December 7, 
1995, was mailed to every congressional office as well as over 
17,000 lobbyists, journalists, and other interested parties.
    The Committee also received numerous requests at the 
beginning of the Congress for guidance regarding solicitations 
by Members on behalf of outside organizations. Increased 
interest in this area resulted from the repeal in January 1995 
of the House rule authorizing Legislative Service Organizations 
as official House offices, and from interest by some Members in 
helping some of those enterprises establish themselves as 
outside organizations. In response to these requests, the 
Committee issued an advisory memorandum on solicitations on 
April 4, 1995.

Publications

    The Committee issued the following advisory memoranda 
during the 104th Congress, which were distributed to all 
Members, officers, and employees of the House:
          Outside Earnings Restrictions for 1995 (February 15, 
        1995);
          Solicitation Guidelines (April 4, 1995);
          Classified Oath Information (July 12, 1995);
          New Gift Rule (December 7, 1995);
          Travel Reporting Guidelines (December 22, 1995);
          Outside Earnings Restrictions for 1996 (January 31, 
        1996);
          Widely Attended & Other Events Under the New Gift 
        Rule (March 18, 1996);
          Legal Expense Fund Regulations (June 10, 1996);
          Gift Rule Issues (July 8, 1996);
          Guidelines for National Party Conventions (July 29, 
        1996);
          Guidelines for Presidential Inauguration (December 
        12, 1996);
          Copies of these memoranda are re-printed in Appendix 
        A of this report.

Briefings

    As part of its outreach and educational efforts, the 
Committee conducted numerous briefings during the 104th 
Congress regarding applicable ethical standards in the House of 
Representatives and rules governing financial disclosure. The 
Committee accorded a high priority to such briefings due to the 
large number of new Members and the passage of the new gift 
rule.
    The Committee sponsored briefings on the new gift rule and 
participated in other briefings sponsored by the Clerk's office 
and private outside groups. The Committee provided briefings 
during the orientation session for Members-elect to the 104th 
Congress and offered subsequent individual briefings for the 
new Members and their staff. The Committee provided copies of 
the House Ethics Manual and Highlights of House Ethics Rules to 
every new Member of Congress as part the orientation process. 
Many Members availed themselves of the opportunity for an 
ethics briefing, and the Committee found that these briefings 
provided a useful way to inform Members and their staff, 
including district office staff, about the Code of Official 
Conduct and other relevant rules. The Committee will continue 
this outreach effort in the 105th Congress.
    The Committee also provided briefings to returning Members 
and staff as part of its ongoing educational efforts. Committee 
staff participated in briefings sponsored by the Congressional 
Research Service and non-Congressional groups. Committee staff 
also received numerous requests for briefings from visiting 
international dignitaries, including several elected officials. 
Visitors from the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe and 
many countries in Asia were particularly interested in our 
ethics regulations.

Advisory Opinions

    The Committee's Office of Advice and Education, under the 
direction and supervision of the Committee's Chairwoman and 
Ranking Minority Member, prepared approximately 1,200 private 
advisory opinions during the 104th Congress. Opinions issued by 
the Committee in the 104th Congress addressed a wide range of 
subjects, including the following:
          Numerous matters under the new gift rule, including 
        privately funded travel and public disclosure of the 
        expenses paid; Gifts from personal friends and from 
        units of government; gifts to spouses and other family 
        members; and offers of free attendance at receptions, 
        ``widely attended events,'' and charity events;
          Limitations on the acceptance of gifts from foreign 
        governments, including gifts of travel;
          Solicitations by Members on behalf of charities and 
        other non-profit organizations, and the permissibility 
        of other forms of Member involvement with outside 
        organizations or their events;
          Restrictions on campaign activity by House employees;
          Requirements concerning the use of volunteers, 
        interns and fellows in Members' offices, and the 
        permissible structure and activities of Members' 
        advisory groups;
          Considerations pertinent to the outside employment of 
        the spouse of a Member or employee; and
          The applicability, in various circumstances, of the 
        ban on honoraria, the limitation on outside earned 
        income, and the ban on providing fiduciary services.

                       III. Financial Disclosure

    Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended 
(5 U.S.C. app. 6, Sections 101-111), requires officials in all 
branches of the Federal Government to disclose to the public 
financial information regarding themselves and their families. 
In the House of Representatives, the Committee is responsible 
for administering the Act. The Committee establishes policy, 
issues instructions, and designs the Financial Disclosure 
Statements to be filed by Members, officers, legislative branch 
employees, and candidates for the House. After Statements are 
filed with the Office of Records and Registration of the Clerk 
of the House, they are forwarded to the Committee to be 
reviewed for compliance with the law. Accountants from the 
General Accounting Office assist the Committee in its review 
efforts.
    The Committee provided briefings for persons required to 
file Financial Disclosure Statements during the 104th Congress. 
In addition, Committee staff reviewed draft filings by Members 
and employees to reduce errors and the need for amendments. In 
calendar years 1995 and 1996, Committee staff reviewed 
approximately 5,046 Financial Disclosure Statements, including 
1,312 Statements from candidates.
    Pursuant to its authority under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342, the 
Committee also continued its activities implementing the 
disclosure and reporting requirements of the Foreign Gifts and 
Decorations Act, and responded to requests from Members and 
employees for interpretations of the Act. Reports filed in 
accordance with this Act are available for public inspection at 
the Committee office.

                           IV. Investigations

Procedures

    Committee rules set forth the following standards and 
requirements concerning the filing of complaints with the 
Committee, and the limitations governing Committee acceptance 
of a complaint:

          A complaint must be in writing, under oath, and 
        dated.
          The complaint must state the nature of the alleged 
        violation of the Code of Official Conduct or other law, 
        rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct 
        applicable to the performance of duties or discharge of 
        responsibilities.
          The complaint must state the facts alleged to give 
        rise to the violation, but may not contain innuendo, 
        speculative assertions, or conclusory statements.
          A Member of the House may file a complaint directly, 
        or may forward the complaint of an individual not a 
        Member for the purpose of initiating a Preliminary 
        Inquiry.
          If three Members refuse in writing to forward the 
        complaint of someone not a Member, acknowledging that 
        this may cause the Committee to initiate a Preliminary 
        Inquiry, then the individual may file the Complaint 
        directly with the Committee. An exact copy of the 
        complaint filed must be attached to each refusal 
        letter.
          Unless the complaining party provides a copy of the 
        complaint to the respondent (the person against whom 
        the complaint is filed), the Committee will not accept 
        the complaint.
          Complaints filed within 60 days prior to an election 
        in which the respondent is a candidate will not be 
        accepted.
          The respondent will be notified if a complaint is 
        returned, or if it is accepted by the Committee as 
        properly filed.
          The respondent will be afforded an opportunity to 
        provide information to the Committee in response to a 
        complaint.
          The Committee cannot initiate an investigation of an 
        alleged violation that occurred before the third 
        previous Congress, unless the Committee determines that 
        the alleged violation is directly related to an alleged 
        violation which occurred in a more recent Congress.
          If a Member, officer, or employee is convicted of a 
        crime for which a sentence of one or more years may be 
        imposed, a Preliminary Inquiry must be undertaken after 
        sentencing, although the Committee may act sooner.

    Upon receipt of a complaint, the Committee first determines 
if it satisfies the procedural requirements of Clause 
4(e)(2)(B) of House Rule 10 and Committee Rule 14. If the 
Committee determines that the complaint is in proper form and 
the matter is within the Committee's jurisdiction, it may 
initiate a Preliminary Inquiry upon an affirmative vote of a 
majority of its members. If the Committee authorizes a 
Preliminary Inquiry, the Chairwoman and Ranking Minority Member 
must select four or six Members to comprise an Investigative 
Subcommittee.
    The Investigative Subcommittee then conducts an 
investigation, reviews the evidence, and determines whether 
there is reason to believe that an offense within the 
Committee's jurisdiction was committed. If a majority of the 
Investigative Subcommittee finds reason to believe that such a 
violation was committed, the Subcommittee adopts a Statement of 
Alleged Violation asserting specific charges in separate 
counts. The Subcommittee notifies the respondent of its 
determination, transmits a copy of the Statement of Alleged 
Violation to the respondent, and advises the respondent that he 
or she has thirty days in which to respond. Once the response 
is received, or the time for filing a response has expired, the 
Statement of Alleged Violation and the response is forwarded to 
the Chairwoman and Ranking Minority Member. The deliberations 
of the Subcommittee are confidential until the report and 
response have been forwarded to the full Committee.
    The Chairwoman then designates the remaining Committee 
members to comprise an Adjudicatory Subcommittee to conduct a 
Disciplinary Hearing. At the conclusion of the Disciplinary 
Hearing, the subcommittee determines if any count contained in 
the Statement of Alleged Violation has been proven by clear and 
convincing evidence. If so, the full Committee holds a Sanction 
Hearing to determine what punishment, if any, to recommend to 
the House of Representatives.
    The Committee may recommend one or more of the following 
sanctions to the House of Representatives:
          (1) Expulsion from the House of Representatives;
          (2) Censure;
          (3) Reprimand;
          (4) Fine;
          (5) Denial or limitation of any right, power, 
        privilege, or immunity of the Member, if under the 
        Constitution the House of Representatives may impose 
        such limitation or denial; or
          (6) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to 
        be appropriate.
    Alternatively, the Committee may send a Letter of Reproval 
to the Respondent without recommending further action by the 
full House.

Complaints

    The Committee received a record number of complaints 
against Members of the House during the 104th Congress. Some 
complaints did not comply with House and Committee rules and 
were returned to the complainant, but most complied with the 
rules and were given full consideration by the Committee for 
appropriate disposition. In most cases, the Committee publicly 
released its letters to Members upon the final disposition of a 
case in order to better educate Members and the general public 
about the rules of conduct and the ethics process.
    Some Members of the Committee on both sides of the aisle 
were troubled during the 104th Congress by what they perceived 
as an abuse of the ethics process, and believed that some 
complaints were filed for purely political purposes or were 
clearly frivolous. While the Committee diligently considered 
the substantive allegations of each of these complaints, the 
time consumed by their consideration detracted from the 
Committee's attention to other, more important pending matters, 
and underscores the need to clarify Committee rules governing 
the submission of complaints.
    In addition, the Committee was deeply troubled by 
references in the press to ``Committee sources'' as sources of 
confidential information about pending Committee business. 
Information attributable to such sources often was incomplete 
or inaccurate, and it put the Committee in the awkward position 
of either leaving misinformation in the public domain or 
breaching the confidentiality required by Committee rules by 
correcting the information officially. In addition, breaches of 
confidentiality are unfair to the Member under review, destroy 
the integrity of the ethics process, and erode trust among 
Committee members. Clarifying the Committee's rules to allow 
the Committee to deal more effectively with this problem is 
essential to reforming the ethics process, and to enabling the 
Committee to operate more smoothly in the future.
    The Committee considered and took action on the following 
cases during the 104th Congress.

a. Representative Newt Gingrich

    The Committee received several complaints against 
Representative Newt Gingrich during the 104th Congress, as 
detailed below.
            (1) Complaint Filed by Former Representative Ben Jones
    Former Representative Ben Jones filed a complaint against 
Representative Gingrich on September 12, 1994, alleging that 
Representative Gingrich used official resources in preparing a 
college course entitled ``Renewing American Civilization.'' 
These allegations were examined by the Committee during the 
103rd Congress. Representative Gingrich made restitution to the 
U.S. Treasury in the amount of $12.00, and the Committee 
recommended no further action.
    Mr. Jones also alleged that Representative Gingrich acted 
improperly in accepting a $25,000 contribution by Mr. Richard 
Berman to the Kennesaw State College Foundation. Mr. Berman 
made this contribution after testifying before a House 
subcommittee. Telephone interviews by staff and documentary 
evidence reviewed by the Committee failed to support the 
allegation of a quid pro quo or conflict of interest. 
Therefore, the Committee dismissed this allegation.
    Finally, Mr. Jones alleged that Representative Gingrich 
misused tax-exempt entities organized under 26 U.S.C. 
Sec. 501(c)(3) in support of his course entitled ``Renewing 
American Civilization.'' The Committee found that this 
allegation merited further inquiry and authorized a Preliminary 
Inquiry on December 6, 1995. The Committee also agreed to hire 
Special Counsel to assist the Investigative Subcommittee.
    The Resolution of Preliminary Inquiry stated as follows:

                   Resolution of Preliminary Inquiry

          Whereas, complaints have been filed with the 
        Committee alleging improper conduct by Representative 
        Newt Gingrich in connection with a college course and 
        certain foundations qualified under section 501(c)(3) 
        of Title 26 of the United States Code; and
          Whereas, the Committee determines that these 
        allegations are within the jurisdiction of the 
        Committee and merit further inquiry; Now, therefore, be 
        it
          Resolved, That the Committee conduct a Preliminary 
        Inquiry, in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules of the 
        Committee to determine if there is reason to believe 
        that Representative Gingrich's activities in relation 
        to the college course ``Renewing American 
        Civilization'' were in violation of section 501(c)(3), 
        with respect to the course, violated its status with 
        the knowledge and approval of Representative Gingrich; 
        and be it further
          Resolved, That the Chair and Ranking Democratic 
        Member appoint four Members of the Committee to serve 
        as Members of the Investigative Subcommittee that will 
        conduct the Preliminary Inquiry; and be it further
          Resolved, That the Committee appoint a Special 
        Counsel to assist the subcommittee.

    On December 22, 1995, the Committee hired James Cole as 
Special Counsel to assist an Investigative Subcommittee chaired 
by Representative Goss. The other Committee members assigned to 
the subcommittee were Representatives Cardin, Schiff and 
Pelosi.
    On September 26, 1996, the Investigative Subcommittee 
provided an interim report to the full Committee which was 
publicly released by vote of the full Committee. The interim 
report stated, in pertinent part:

          To date the Preliminary Inquiry has involved, among 
        other things, the interviewing of 40 witnesses and the 
        review of documents produced in response to 52 
        subpoenas or requests for documents. This activity was 
        substantially completed by August 13, 1996. Since that 
        time, the Subcommittee has reviewed the materials and 
        met numerous times to discuss at length with Special 
        Counsel the facts and law related to this matter. The 
        Subcommittee is continuing its work in regard to the 
        issues presented in the Resolution of Preliminary 
        Inquiry.
          Rule 16 of the Rules of the Committee allows for the 
        institution of a Preliminary Inquiry in the absence of 
        a filed complaint when the Committee has in its 
        possession any information indicating that a Member, 
        officer, or employee may have committed a violation of 
        the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, 
        regulation, or other applicable standard of conduct. 
        Under Rule 16(b) of the Committee's Rules, the standard 
        to be applied in determining whether to institute a 
        Preliminary Inquiry is whether the information merits 
        further inquiry.
          While the scope of the Preliminary Inquiry has been 
        carefully focused on the issues presented by the 
        Committee's original Resolution of December 6, 1995, 
        certain facts have been discovered in the course of the 
        Preliminary Inquiry which the Subcommittee has 
        determined merit further inquiry. The Subcommittee has 
        expanded the Preliminary Inquiry to include the 
        following areas:
          (1) Whether Representative Gingrich provided 
        accurate, reliable, and complete information concerning 
        the course entitled ``Renewing American Civilization,'' 
        GOPAC's relationship to the course entitled ``Renewing 
        American Civilization,'' or the Progress and Freedom 
        Foundation in the course of communicating with the 
        Committee, directly or through counsel (House Rule 43, 
        Cl. 1);
          (2) Whether Representative Gingrich's relationship 
        with the Progress and Freedom Foundation, including but 
        not limited to his involvement with the course entitled 
        ``Renewing American Civilization,'' violated the 
        foundation's status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code and related regulations (House Rule 43, 
        Cl. 1);
          (3) Whether Representative Gingrich's use of the 
        personnel and facilities of the Progress and Freedom 
        Foundation constituted a use of unofficial resources 
        for official purposes (House Rule 45); and
          (4) Whether Representative Gingrich's activities on 
        behalf of the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation 
        violated its status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code and related regulations or whether the 
        Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation violated its 
        status with the knowledge and approval of 
        Representative Gingrich (House Rule 43, Cl. 1).
          It is important to understand that this action does 
        not mean the Subcommittee has at this point made any 
        determination that there is reason to believe 
        Representative Gingrich committed any violation within 
        the jurisdiction of the Committee.
          The Subcommittee is in the process of notifying 
        Representative Gingrich of these new areas of inquiry 
        and will endeavor to finish its work as expeditiously 
        as possible. It is anticipated that this process will 
        be completed by the end of this Congress. Once that is 
        done the Subcommittee will report its conclusions to 
        the Committee in accordance with the Committee's Rules.

    On January 26, 1995, former Representative Ben Jones filed 
another complaint against Representative Gingrich. That 
complaint contained several new allegations and repeated three 
charges from his first complaint filed on September 12, 1994.
    First, Mr. Jones alleged that Representative Gingrich's 
book contract with HarperCollins violated the principles set 
forth in House Select Committee on Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 
13, (October 1978), which notes that being a Member of Congress 
is a full-time job. The Committee has never ruled that writing 
a book in itself violates the responsibilities of being a 
Member; in fact, the Committee has approved numerous book 
contracts over the past few years. The Committee therefore 
dismissed this allegation.
    Second, Mr. Jones alleged that the amount of money 
Representative Gingrich was expected to earn abused the 
exception to the outside earned income limit regarding 
copyright royalties. Because neither law nor House rules impose 
any limit on the amount of copyright royalties a Member may 
receive, the Committee dismissed that allegation.
    Third, Mr. Jones alleged that Representative Gingrich 
violated the Code of Ethics for Government Service by accepting 
favors or benefits from Mr. Rupert Murdoch in the form of a 
book contract with Mr. Murdoch's company, HarperCollins. Mr. 
Jones alleged that at a November 28, 1994, meeting between Mr. 
Murdoch and Representative Gingrich, Mr. Murdoch made an 
attempt to influence Representative Gingrich to aid the Fox 
Network (owned by Mr. Murdoch) in its dispute with NBC by 
providing Representative Gingrich with a lucrative book 
contract.
    The Committee examined fifteen witnesses under oath, 
including every participant in the November 28, 1994 meeting. 
The Committee found no evidence that either the book or the 
negotiations between Representative Gingrich and HarperCollins 
were mentioned at the meeting between Representative Gingrich 
and Mr. Murdoch. Further, the Committee concluded that the 
meeting was a courtesy visit of a routine nature, and that the 
pending NBC complaint before the Federal Communications 
Commission was mentioned only briefly. Consequently, the 
Committee concluded that this allegation did not merit further 
inquiry and dismissed it.
    Mr. Jones also alleged that the book auction process was 
improper. The Committee examined numerous witnesses under oath 
who were involved in the auction process, including 
representatives of each of the major publishing houses that bid 
on Representative Gingrich's book. The Committee also deposed 
individuals from HarperCollins who were involved in either the 
auction or the contract negotiations. The auction process and 
the contract were examined by the Committee and by an outside 
expert not associated with Representative Gingrich's book or 
the auction. The auction process--which initially resulted in a 
$4.5 million advance, later renegotiated to a one dollar 
advance--was found to be consistent with standard industry 
practices.
    The Committee concluded that Representative Gingrich did 
not violate House Rule 47, which governs book contracts or 
royalty income. While the original advance substantially 
exceeded the terms of any book contract contemplated when the 
current House rules were drafted, the Committee concluded that 
Representative Gingrich's book contract was in technical 
compliance with the ``usual and customary'' standard of House 
rules regarding royalty income. However, the Committee strongly 
questioned the appropriateness of what some could describe as 
an attempt by Representative Gingrich to capitalize on his 
office.
    The Committee concluded that House Rule 47 should be 
amended to restrict more clearly the income a Member may derive 
from writing books. As the Committee stated in its report to 
the House on December 12, 1995: ``[A]s recent events 
demonstrate, existing rules permit a Member to reap significant 
and immediate financial benefits appearing to be based 
primarily on his or her position. At a minimum, this creates 
the impression of exploiting one's office for personal gain. 
Such a perception is especially troubling when it pertains to 
the office of the Speaker of the House, a constitutional office 
requiring the highest standards of ethical behavior, but it is 
also a factor to be strongly considered by each Member of 
Congress.''
    The Committee recommended that House Rule 47 be changed to 
subject royalty income derived from books written while one is 
a Member to the same limits as other sources of outside earned 
income, and to prohibit Members, officers and employees from 
receiving advances from a book contract. To implement that 
recommendation, Committee Chairwoman Nancy L. Johnson, joined 
by the other members of the Committee, introduced H. Res. 299 
on December 12, 1995. The House debated and adopted a 
substitute resolution which prohibited Members, officers and 
employees from receiving advances from a book contract but did 
not subject royalty income received from book sales to the 
outside earned income limit.
    Mr. Jones further alleged that Representative Gingrich 
asked chief executive officers at the Business Roundtable to 
provide volunteers to help him reduce the size of government, 
and that he asked the Business Roundtable and the Managed 
Futures Association to buy the tapes of his course. The 
Committee found no evidence of any contribution of goods or 
services in support of congressional operations, and concluded 
there had been no violation of Rule 45. The Committee therefore 
dismissed this count of the Jones complaint on the grounds that 
it merited no further inquiry.
    Further, the Committee found that no House rule or 
regulation is violated when a Member, without using any 
official resources, mentions the availability of a product such 
as a videotape collection, particularly when the beneficiary of 
any sales is an organization recognized under Section 170(c) of 
the Internal Revenue Code. In fact, the Committee's memorandum 
of October 9, 1990, allows such solicitations by Members, 
officers, and employees without any requirement for prior 
approval by this Committee. The Committee subsequently 
dismissed this count of the Jones complaint.
    Finally, Mr. Jones alleged that Representative Gingrich 
improperly intervened with Executive Branch officials on behalf 
of Direct Access Diagnostics, a contributor to the Progress and 
Freedom Foundation (``Foundation''). The Committee obtained 
sworn testimony from four witnesses and reviewed written 
submissions provided by Representative Gingrich, the 
Foundation, and Johnson & Johnson, the corporate parent company 
of Direct Access Diagnostics. The Committee found no credible 
evidence of any improper linkage between the action of 
Representative Gingrich and contributions to the Foundation. In 
addition, the Committee found that other Members had sent 
letters to Executive Branch officials on behalf of Direct 
Access Diagnostics. The Committee therefore dismissed this 
allegation on the grounds that it did not merit further 
inquiry.
            (2) Complaint Filed by Representative George Miller
    On February 13, 1995, Representative George Miller filed a 
complaint against Representative Gingrich on behalf of Ralph 
Nader's Congressional Accountability Project, which had 
prepared the complaint. This complaint alleged that 
Representative Gingrich improperly used the services of Mr. 
Joseph Gaylord in the operation of Representative Gingrich's 
congressional office in violation of House Rule 45, which 
prohibits the use of private resources for official purposes. 
The Committee found that Representative Gingrich made 
inappropriate use of Mr. Gaylord's services during the period 
in which Representative Gingrich was assembling his leadership 
staff to become Speaker. The Committee also found that the 
routine presence of Mr. Gaylord in Representative Gingrich's 
congressional office created the appearance of improper 
commingling of political and official resources and was 
inappropriate. The Committee concluded that these actions 
collectively violated House Rule 45. The Committee notified 
Representative Gingrich of this finding in its publicly 
released letter to him of December 6, 1995 and took no further 
action on the complaint.
            (3) Complaint Filed by Representatives Schroeder, Johnston, 
                    and McKinney
    On February 23, 1995, Representatives Schroeder, Johnston, 
and McKinney filed a complaint against Representative Gingrich. 
The complaint alleged that Representative Gingrich's receipt of 
free cable time from Mind Extension University to broadcast his 
course constituted a gift and was an improper solicitation and/
or acceptance of something of value in violation of House 
rules.
    Based on sworn testimony, a review of documentary evidence, 
and interviews by Committee staff, the Committee found that the 
broadcasting of the lectures did not constitute either a gift 
or a favor to Representative Gingrich within the meaning of 
House rules or applicable standards, and that there was not an 
improper solicitation. The receipt of an incidental benefit of 
publicity does not constitute ``something of value'' under 5 
U.S.C. Sec. 7353. The Committee further found there was no 
evidence of Representative Gingrich's involvement in the 
solicitation of free cable time; that he was not compensated 
for the broadcasting of the lectures; and that there was 
nothing special or unusual about the broadcasting arrangement. 
The Committee dismissed this allegation on the grounds that it 
did not merit further inquiry and so notified Representative 
Gingrich in its publicly released letter to him of December 6, 
1995.
            (4) Complaints Filed by Representative David Bonior
    Representative David Bonior filed a complaint against 
Representative Gingrich on March 8, 1995. This complaint 
alleged that between February 2, 1993, and April 24, 1994, 
Representative Gingrich improperly used official resources for 
unofficial purposes by speaking once on the House floor about 
his course, ``Renewing American Civilization,'' and by 
mentioning a 1-800 telephone number during three Special Orders 
and an Extension of Remarks.
    Representative Gingrich previously had informed the 
Committee of his intention to discuss the course on the House 
floor, and the Committee confirmed it was within his right to 
do so. However, the Committee regarded the mentioning of the 1-
800 number for the purpose of selling audio or video tapes of 
the college course to be an improper use of the House Floor. 
The Committee's standing policy on solicitation by Members was 
outlined in an August 3, 1993, letter to Representative 
Gingrich regarding fundraising for the course at Kennesaw State 
College. In that letter, the Committee restated its rule 
covering fundraising by Members: ``Members may solicit funds on 
behalf of charitable organizations qualified under Sec. 170(c) 
of the Internal Revenue Code, provided that no official 
resources are used, no official endorsement is implied, and no 
direct personal benefit results.'' By referring to the 1-800 
telephone number, by which tapes were offered for sale in a 
speech on the House floor, Representative Gingrich improperly 
used official resources in a solicitation for a Sec. 170(c) 
organization. That action also violated the proscription noted 
in the House Ethics Manual against inserting commercial 
advertising in the Congressional Record.
    Thus, while the Committee found no misuse of official 
resources by Representative Gingrich by speaking about the 
course, it did find a misuse of a Member's prerogative to speak 
on the House Floor in the instance in which the 1-800 number 
established to sell tapes was mentioned. The Committee took no 
further action on this complaint.
    On May 15, 1995, Representative Bonior filed a second 
complaint against Representative Gingrich alleging that 
Representative Gingrich violated House Rules by using Special 
Orders in 1990 to publicize a GOPAC-sponsored activity, the 
American Opportunities Workshop (``AOW''). During these Special 
Orders, Representative Gingrich referred to a 1-800 telephone 
number by which tapes of the televised program could be 
obtained. Of special significance to the Committee was the fact 
that AOW was sponsored by GOPAC, a partisan organization. 
Representative Gingrich's assertions in the Special Orders that 
the endeavor was nonpartisan did not overcome the perception of 
partisanship stemming from GOPAC's involvement in the 
organization and operation of AOW. The Committee found that the 
Special Orders violated House Rules because they constituted 
use of the official resources of the House Floor for political 
purposes. The Committee took no further action on the 
complaint.
            (5) Committee Action on Jones & Bonior Complaints
    The Committee began meeting on the above-referenced 
complaints on February 9, 1995, shortly after it was 
constituted for the 104th Congress. As the Committee received 
new complaints against Representative Gingrich, it provided 
Representative Gingrich thirty days to respond to each 
additional complaint, as required by Committee Rule 18. In some 
cases, the allegations raised no issues of fact, and the 
Committee was able to resolve those allegations without 
conducting an investigation. In other cases, it appeared that 
the conduct alleged could be verified by seeking further 
information, and the Committee obtained additional 
documentation. Some allegations raised complex issues requiring 
resources not available on the Committee staff.
    The Committee held more than fifty meetings on these 
complaints in Executive Session, either to discuss the 
complaints among the Members of the Committee, or to obtain 
testimony from witnesses with knowledge pertinent to the 
allegations at issue. Consistent with Committee Rules 17 and 
22, each witness was permitted to have counsel present.
    On December 6, 1995, the Committee took final action on 
five of the six pending complaints against Representative 
Gingrich. The Committee adopted the approach of consolidating 
these complaints because of the interrelationship between some 
of the allegations, and to give Members confidence to deal with 
each allegation on its merits, since no vote was final until 
all counts of the complaints were resolved satisfactorily. 
Given the range of options for resolving the various 
complaints--from dismissal to referral to an outside counsel--
this approach was successful, and it resulted in a unanimous 
vote on final action on all counts. The Committee notified 
Representative Gingrich by letter on December 6, 1995, 
regarding its disposition of these complaints, and voted to 
publicly release that letter.
    On December 21, 1996, the Investigative Subcommittee 
chaired by Representative Goss adopted a Statement of Alleged 
Violation against Representative Gingrich. (See Appendix B.) 
The Statement of Alleged Violation charged Representative 
Gingrich with violating House Rule 43, Clause 1. The 
Subcommittee found that Representative Gingrich ``failed to 
take appropriate steps to ensure that the activities [of 
certain tax-exempt organizations] were in accordance with 
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. . . .'' The 
Subcommittee also found that ``information was transmitted to 
the Committee by and on behalf of Mr. Gingrich that was 
material to matters under consideration by the Committee, which 
information, as Mr. Gingrich should have known, was inaccurate, 
incomplete, and unreliable.''
    Representative Gingrich admitted to the alleged violations 
and waived his right to an adjudicatory hearing. The Committee 
expects to be re-authorized by the House to complete the 
disposition of this matter by January 21, 1997, by which time 
the Committee will have conducted a sanctions hearing and filed 
a final report with the House.
            (6) Complaints Filed by Representative George Miller
    On November 15, 1995, and April 22, 1996, Representative 
George Miller filed complaints against Representative Gingrich 
on behalf of the Congressional Accountability Project, alleging 
that Representative Gingrich violated House rules by using the 
services of Mr. Donald Jones in his congressional offices. The 
Committee found that, while Representative Gingrich's office 
took steps to ensure that Mr. Jones' activities in the 
congressional office was proper, his participation as an 
``informal advisor'' did not comply with applicable guidelines 
issued by the Committee governing interns or volunteers because 
his services were not provided as part of a clearly defined 
educational program. The Committee directed Representative 
Gingrich to ``take immediate steps to not only prevent the 
reoccurrence of similar incidents and ensure compliance with 
applicable standards, but also to guard against even the 
appearance of impropriety.''
    The Committee determined that the complaints did not merit 
further inquiry, however, and dismissed them. Representative 
Gingrich was informed of the Committee's decisions by a letter, 
which was publicly released.
            (7) Complaint Filed by Bonior, DeLauro, Lewis, Miller & 
                    Schroeder
    On December 14, 1995, Representatives Bonior, DeLauro, 
Lewis, Miller, and Schroeder submitted an amendment to the 
Jones complaint filed with the Committee on January 25, 1995. 
The Members submitting the amendment did not obtain the 
Committee's prior approval to amend their original complaint, 
as required by Committee Rule 14(h). Consequently, on January 
25, 1996, the Committee advised those Members that they could 
re-file their allegations in the form of a new complaint. On 
January 31, 1996, the complainants filed a new complaint 
accompanied by news articles and approximately 8,000 pages of 
documents released by the Federal Election Commission 
(``FEC''). The FEC had obtained those documents from GOPAC 
during a then-pending civil action against GOPAC.
    The new complaint alleged that: (1) Representative Gingrich 
violated the laws governing tax-exempt organizations with 
respect to the sponsorship and operation of the American 
Opportunity Workshops, the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity 
Foundation, and American Citizens' Television; (2) he 
intervened improperly with the Environmental Protection Agency 
in 1991 on behalf of Mr. Miller Nichols, a non-constituent, 
concerning federal asbestos regulations; (3) he intervened 
improperly with the International Trade Commission in 1989 on 
behalf of Southdown, Inc., a contributor to GOPAC; (4) he 
received improper personal benefits from GOPAC in 1990; (5) he 
personally violated Federal election campaign laws with respect 
to alleged contributions by GOPAC to his 1990 congressional 
campaign; (6) he directed that contributions to GOPAC be 
forwarded to his 1990 election campaign; and (7) he separately 
violated House Rule 43, Clause 1, based on cumulative alleged 
conduct cited throughout the complaint.
    On February 1, 1996, the Committee notified the 
complainants that the new complaint satisfied the procedural 
requirements of Committee rules, and that the Committee was 
forwarding the complaint to Representative Gingrich. The 
Committee also advised the complainants that it was returning 
to them two boxes containing the above-specified 8,000 pages of 
documents. The Committee took this action because Committee 
rules require that documents submitted with a complaint be 
related to the specific counts of a complaint, and the 
Committee understood that the relevant documents had been 
attached to the complaint and cited therein with specificity.
    On March 4, 1996, Representative Gingrich responded to the 
complaint through his attorney, denying all allegations in the 
complaint.
    The Committee undertook an analysis of the legal and 
factual allegations contained in the complaint, and, in two 
instances, sought additional information. On May 30, 1996, two 
Committee staff attorneys met with a senior FEC attorney 
familiar with the FEC civil action against GOPAC in order to 
obtain further information about how that case related to two 
counts of the complaint alleging violations of Federal election 
campaign law. In addition, the Committee received documents in 
the summer of 1996 from Mr. Miller Nichols, who was unable to 
appear before the Committee, and from the J.S. Nichols Company.
    On August 1, 1996, the Committee referred to the 
Investigative Subcommittee chaired by Representative Porter 
Goss the allegations concerning tax-exempt organizations, based 
on similarities between the conduct alleged and matters already 
under investigation by the Goss Subcommittee. On September 26, 
the Committee determined that the allegations regarding tax-
exempt organizations were moot for purposes of this complaint, 
in light of the referral of those allegations to the Goss 
Subcommittee. The Committee dismissed the allegations 
concerning Miller Nichols and Southdown on the grounds that 
they did not merit further inquiry. On September 27, 1996, the 
Committee submitted a request to the Investigative Subcommittee 
chaired by Representative Goss, seeking to determine whether 
the subcommittee had any information in its possession relating 
to the unresolved allegations that Representative Gingrich 
received improper personal benefits from GOPAC, and that he 
personally violated Federal election campaign laws.
    The Committee notified Representative Gingrich of these 
actions on September 28, 1996. In its notification letter, the 
Committee advised Representative Gingrich that it was still in 
the process of obtaining additional information concerning the 
allegation that he received improper personal benefits from 
GOPAC in 1990, the alleged violations of Federal election 
campaign laws, and the alleged violation of House Rule 43, 
Clause 1, based on alleged cumulative conduct described in the 
complaint. The Committee advised Representative Gingrich that 
it had not reached any conclusions regarding the latter 
allegations.

b. Classified Information/Secrecy Oath

    On April 7, 1995, Representative Larry Combest and 
Representative Robert Torricelli submitted letters to the 
Committee in which they asked the Committee to make certain 
determinations regarding the publication by the New York Times 
of information contained in a letter sent by Representative 
Torricelli to President Clinton and provided to the Times by 
Representative Torricelli. On January 4, 1995, the House 
adopted a new rule (Rule XLVIII, Cl. 13) requiring each Member, 
officer and employee of the House to execute an oath before 
receiving access to classified information. The oath states as 
follows:

          I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not 
        disclose any classified information received in the 
        course of my service with the House of Representatives, 
        except as authorized by the House of Representatives or 
        in accordance with its rules.

     The Committee found the portion of the oath referring to 
classified information received ``in the course of'' service in 
the House to be ambiguous. However, the Committee concluded 
that the public disclosure of the particularly sensitive 
information asserted to be at issue here would be contrary to 
what the Committee now interprets to be the requirements of 
House Rule XLIII, Clause 13. Because of the ambiguity noted 
above, the Committee took no further action regarding 
Representative Torricelli. On July 12, 1995, the Committee 
issued guidance on the secrecy oath which stated in pertinent 
part:

                             Scope of Oath

          The Committee agrees that the oath's reference to 
        information received ``in the course of . . . service 
        in the House'' may lead to confusion. It has been 
        suggested that this phrase covers only that classified 
        information furnished to a Member by the House of 
        Representatives or by the Executive Branch, such as at 
        a hearing, briefing, or in response to written 
        requests. Others suggest that the phrase includes any 
        classified information provided to a Member by any 
        person during the Member's term in office.
          The Committee believes that the latter formulation is 
        correct and best effectuates the intent of the rule.

                            Duty to Inquire

          The Committee further believes that to give full 
        effect to the purpose of the oath, each Member, when in 
        doubt as to the classification of what a Member 
        believes to be sensitive information in his or her 
        possession, must make a good faith effort to determine 
        if it is classified before disclosing it to the public. 
        Such a determination can be made by contacting the 
        House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or 
        other appropriate Committee of jurisdiction.

c. Representative Mel Reynolds

    In April 1995, the Committee received information alleging 
violations of House rules by Representative Mel Reynolds. On 
May 11, 1995, the Committee self-initiated a complaint against 
Representative Reynolds and, in a letter to Representative 
Reynolds, invited him to comment on the allegations. The 
Committee received Representative Reynolds' response on June 
26, 1996. The Committee adopted a Resolution of Preliminary 
Inquiry on June 28, 1996, and informed Representative Reynolds 
that it would not make any public statement about this matter 
until the conclusion of his state trial in Illinois on charges 
of criminal sexual assault, aggravated sexual abuse, 
solicitation of child pornography, and obstruction of justice. 
The Resolution of Preliminary Inquiry alleged that 
Representative Reynolds misused congressional staff for 
personal purposes, used official resources for personal and 
campaign purposes, failed to repay personal debts incurred by 
personal staff on his behalf, and asked congressional staff to 
tell the Illinois State's Attorney certain information that was 
false.
    Representative Reynolds was convicted in Illinois State 
Court on August 22, 1995, on all charges. On September 1, 1995, 
he resigned from the House of Representatives. The Committee 
lost jurisdiction over Mr. Reynolds effective upon his 
resignation from the House.

d. Representative Richard K. Armey

     On June 2, 1995, Representative Gutierrez filed a 
complaint against Representative Richard K. Armey on behalf of 
the Congressional Accountability Project, alleging that 
Representative Armey violated House rules by allowing a private 
entity to use terms in a letter that created the appearance of 
a congressional endorsement. In accordance with Committee 
rules, Representative Armey was afforded an opportunity to 
respond to the complaint. Representative Armey acknowledged 
that a facsimile of official letterhead he authorized to be 
used was technically an infringement of a House rule, and that 
he regretted the oversight. After considering the complaint and 
Representative Armey's response, the Committee determined that 
the complaint did not merit further inquiry and dismissed it. 
In a publicly released letter to Representative Armey, the 
Committee noted his acknowledgement of the violation to the 
Committee and stated that no further action was necessary.

e. Representative Charles Wilson

    On August 28, 1995, the FEC transmitted to the Committee 
information pertaining to Representative Wilson that was 
developed during the Commission's investigation and disposition 
of allegations that Representative Wilson's campaign committee 
failed to report certain disbursements and receipts. The FEC 
matter was concluded with a conciliation agreement between 
Representative Wilson and the FEC pursuant to which 
Representative Wilson's campaign paid a $90,000 fine. The 
information provided to the Committee indicated that on several 
occasions between July 1988 and August 1990, Representative 
Wilson received personal loans from his campaign committee, and 
that his Financial Disclosure Statement for calendar year 1990 
did not disclose as a liability a debt exceeding $10,000 that 
Representative Wilson owed his campaign for approximately 
twenty days in 1990.
    In each case, Representative Wilson violated the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, including House Rule XLIII, 
Clause 6. Representative Wilson appeared before the Committee 
on November 30, 1995, asserting that he was unaware of the 
relevant rules and that he had lent his campaign substantial 
amounts of money and had not adequately distinguished between 
his campaign account and his personal finances. The Committee 
concluded that Representative Wilson should have been aware of 
the prohibition of borrowing from campaign funds. 
Representative Wilson admitted the error. Given the admission 
of error and the fine paid to the FEC, the Committee dismissed 
the complaint on December 7, 1995, and in a publicly released 
letter admonished Representative Wilson to take all action 
necessary to ensure that he and his staff adhere to the Rules 
of the House and that any recurrence of the violations might 
result in a recommendation that sanctions be imposed.

f. Representative David McIntosh

    On October 27, 1995, Representative Gutierrez filed a 
complaint against Representative David McIntosh on behalf of 
Ralph Nader. On December 5, 1995, Representative Slaughter 
filed another complaint against Representative McIntosh on 
behalf of the Alliance for Justice. Both complaints alleged 
that Representative McIntosh violated House rules by allowing a 
forged document regarding the Alliance for Justice to be 
produced and distributed at a committee hearing held on 
September 28, 1995. One of the complaints also questioned the 
conduct of a Subcommittee staffer who had questioned an 
employee of the Alliance for Justice regarding the employee's 
observance of a religious holiday. In accordance with Committee 
rules, the Committee afforded Representative McIntosh an 
opportunity to respond to the complaints.
    The Committee accepted Representative McIntosh's 
explanation that he did not intend to mislead anyone into 
believing that the chart had been prepared by the Alliance for 
Justice, and that he took responsibility for the chart when 
questions were first raised about it at the Subcommittee 
hearing and apologized immediately for any misunderstanding. 
Furthermore, the graphic artist who prepared the chart said 
that the request was not unusual.
    While the request may not have been unusual, the Committee 
believed it inappropriate for Members or staff to create a 
facsimile of another organization's letterhead. In addition, 
the Committee expressed strong concern regarding the inquiries 
made by a Subcommittee staffer to the Alliance for Justice 
staff. Questioning someone about his or her observance of a 
religious holiday is offensive and improper and will not be 
tolerated by the House. Representative McIntosh advised the 
Committee he did not tolerate behavior that is harassing, 
insensitive or discriminatory in any manner and formalized that 
in written policy for his staff. On March 14, 1996, the 
Committee considered the complaints and determined that they 
did not merit further inquiry and accordingly dismissed the 
complaints. The Congressman was informed of the Committee's 
action by letter.

g. Representative Barbara-Rose Collins

    Based on newspaper articles and interviews with former 
House employees, the Committee self-initiated a complaint 
against Representative Barbara-Rose Collins and afforded her an 
opportunity to respond to the allegations. On December 5, 1995, 
the Committee voted to initiate a Preliminary Inquiry and 
established an Investigative Subcommittee chaired by 
Representative Bunning. Other Subcommittee members included 
Representatives Borski, Hobson and Sawyer. On September 12, 
1996, the Investigative Subcommittee adopted a Statement of 
Alleged Violation concerning Representative Collins' use of 
official, campaign, and scholarship fund resources. (See 
Appendix C.)
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 17(d), the subcommittee 
transmitted a copy of the Statement of Alleged Violation to 
Representative Collins on September 17, 1996, inviting her to 
submit a response. On October 2, 1996, Representative Collins 
submitted a motion for a bill of particulars to the 
subcommittee, in which she sought additional information 
concerning the evidentiary basis for the Statement of Alleged 
Violation. On October 7, 1996, the subcommittee granted 
Representative Collins' motion in part and provided additional 
information to her. On October 24, 1996, Representative 
Collins' attorney notified the subcommittee that Representative 
Collins would not be submitting a response to the Statement of 
Alleged Violation. Representative Collins' attorney advised 
Committee counsel that Representative Collins was foregoing a 
response because of an ongoing criminal investigation 
concerning her. Pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a)(1), the 
subcommittee regarded Representative Collins' failure to submit 
an answer as a denial of each count in the Statement of Alleged 
Violation.
    On October 25, 1996, the subcommittee transmitted the 
Statement of Alleged Violations to the full Committee pursuant 
to Committee Rule 18(g). Representative Collins was defeated in 
a primary election in August 1996. The Investigative 
Subcommittee recommended that no adjudicative subcommittee be 
established, and that no further action be taken in this 
matter. The subcommittee based its recommendation on the fact 
that Representative Collins had lost her primary election in 
August 1996, and that the Committee therefore would lose its 
jurisdiction over her on January 3, 1997, before an 
adjudicative proceeding could be completed. The Committee 
subsequently approved the subcommittee's recommendation.

h. Representative Robert Torricelli

    On December 21, 1995, the Committee received a complaint 
against Representative Robert Torricelli filed by 
Representative William M. Thomas regarding an October 9, 1995, 
press release by Representative Torricelli's congressional 
office in Washington. The press release, which Representative 
Torricelli's congressional office distributed by means of the 
office fax, contained numerous critical remarks about 
Representative Dick Zimmer, then a potential opponent of Mr. 
Torricelli's in the November 1996 election for the U.S. Senate 
seat being vacated by Senator Bill Bradley.
    Representative Thomas' complaint charged Representative 
Torricelli with four violations: (1) House Rule 43, Clause 1, 
which requires that ``a Member . . . shall conduct himself at 
all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the 
House of Representatives''; (2) House Rule 43, Clause 2, which 
states that Members ``shall adhere to the spirit and the letter 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives and to the rules 
of duly constituted committees thereof''; (3) Committee on 
House Oversight rules and 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a), which 
collectively prohibit the use of official resources for 
campaign purposes; and (4) Committee on House Oversight rules 
regarding the use of the Member's Representational Allowance 
and office fax machines. The Committee determined that the 
complaint satisfied the procedural requirements of Committee 
rules, and transmitted it to Representative Torricelli on 
February 1, 1996.
    On February 29, 1996, Representative Torricelli filed a 
response to Representative Thomas' complaint. In his response, 
Representative Torricelli acknowledged that his press release 
could be construed ``to have a political message,'' and 
enclosed a check to the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $2.83 
``for the cost of four sheets of paper and the use of my office 
fax machine.'' He also asked the Committee to dismiss both the 
complaint against him and a separate complaint that he had 
filed against Representative Zimmer.
    On March 29, 1996, the Committee advised Mr. Torricelli of 
its finding that the press release issued by his congressional 
office ``violated applicable rules and regulations concerning 
the use of official resources.'' The Committee informed 
Representative Torricelli that it would take no further action 
on the complaint, but stated its expectation that he would 
comply with applicable rules in the future.

i. Representative Dick Zimmer

    On December 21, 1995, the Committee received a complaint 
against Representative Dick Zimmer filed by Representative 
Robert Torricelli regarding an October 11, 1995, press release 
by Representative Zimmer's congressional office in Washington. 
The press release in question was entitled ``Zimmer Wallops 
Torricelli in N.J. Congressional Softball Tourney,'' and was 
distributed by means of the fax machine in Representative 
Zimmer's congressional office. Representative Torricelli 
alleged that the press release attacked him ``in a personal 
way,'' and that it violated Federal statutes concerning the use 
of the congressional frank.
    On January 5, 1996, the Committee returned the complaint to 
Representative Torricelli on the grounds that the complaint did 
not meet the procedural requirements of Committee rules. On 
January 19, 1996, Representative Torricelli resubmitted his 
complaint against Representative Zimmer.
    On February 29, 1996, Representative Zimmer filed a 
response to Representative Torricelli's complaint. 
Representative Zimmer maintained in his response that his press 
release was ``a light-hearted description of a congressional 
softball tournament among the New Jersey delegation,'' and that 
it ``made no political or personal references.''
    On March 29, 1996, the Committee dismissed Representative 
Torricelli's complaint against Representative Zimmer on the 
grounds that it found no merit to the complaint.

j. Representative Richard A. Gephardt

    On February 2, 1996, Representative Jennifer Dunn filed a 
complaint with the Committee in which she alleged that 
Representative Gephardt had violated House Rules pertaining to 
financial disclosure reporting requirements, the Internal 
Revenue Code, and federal campaign finance laws. The charges in 
Representative Dunn's complaint stemmed from a series of land 
sales and financing agreements regarding real property 
purchased and sold by Representative and Mrs. Gephardt in North 
Carolina. Specifically, Representative Dunn alleged that 
Representative Gephardt entered a series of financing 
arrangements relating to the sale and purchase of real property 
in North Carolina in which he characterized the property as 
``investment'' property in order to obtain favorable tax 
treatment, and that his treatment of the property on his 
Financial Disclosure Statement was inconsistent with the manner 
in which he treated the property for tax purposes.
    Representative Gephardt filed an answer with the Committee 
on February 8, 1996, in which he stated that he had accurately 
reported the property on his financial disclosure forms, that 
the tax treatment of the property was consistent with 
applicable law, and that he had not violated federal campaign 
finance laws. In an amended answer that he filed with the 
Committee on April 17, 1996, Representative Gephardt provided 
the Committee with documentation to support the positions set 
forth in his original answer.
    In May 1996, the Committee directed staff to obtain 
additional information from Representative Gephardt to assist 
the Committee in deciding issues that remained unresolved. 
Representative Gephardt completed his response to the 
Committee's request for additional information by September 8, 
1996. On that date, Representative Gephardt's counsel advised 
Committee staff that Representative Gephardt had discovered an 
inaccuracy on his financial disclosure statement for 1992 that 
would require an amendment. Representative Gephardt filed an 
amended financial disclosure statement on September 27. On 
September 28, the Committee voted to dismiss the complaint 
filed by Representative Dunn.
    In a publicly released letter to Representative Gephardt, 
the Committee noted that Representative Gephardt amended his 
Financial Disclosure Statements for 1991 and 1992 to reflect, 
among other things, gross rental income generated by the 
Corolla Light property during 1992 in the range of $25,000 to 
$50,000 and that this was not the first occasion he has amended 
his Financial Disclosure Statement in connection with these 
transactions. Further, the Committee's resolution of the matter 
had been delayed pending receipt of documentation it had 
requested from Representative Gephardt in May. The Committee 
further noted that it had been unable to resolve the matter 
until Representative Gephardt amended his 1992 financial 
disclosure statement, which was not filed until September 27, 
1996.

k. Representative David Bonior

    On March 6, 1996, the Committee received a complaint 
against Representative Bonior from the Landmark Legal 
Foundation, accompanied by three letters of refusal from 
Members in accordance with Committee Rule 14(e). The complaint 
requested the Committee to determine, with regard to a book co-
authored by Representative Bonior which was published in 1984, 
whether any congressional employees assisted him in his work on 
the book while on official time, and whether any congressional 
employees were rewarded in their House jobs for work done in 
support of the book. On May 9, 1996, the Committee returned the 
complaint to the Landmark Legal Foundation pursuant to 
Committee Rule 15(b), for the reason that the complaint did not 
comply with clause 4(e)(2)(C) of House Rule X and Committee 
Rule 14(j). Those rules prohibit an investigation of any 
alleged violation which occurred before the third previous 
Congress, unless the alleged violation is directly related to 
an alleged violation which occurred in a more recent Congress.
    On March 20, 1996, the Committee received another complaint 
against Representative Bonior from the Landmark Legal 
Foundation, also accompanied by three letters of refusal from 
Members in accordance with Committee Rule 14(e). The complaint 
primarily alleged that in April 1991, the month before 
Representative Bonior married a member of his staff, he 
increased her salary by over 20 percent, and that he thereby 
violated, among other things, several provisions of the Code of 
Official Conduct (House Rule XLIII). The Committee received a 
response on behalf of Representative Bonior on April 26, 1996. 
Upon review of the complaint and response, including 
information on salaries paid to staff in Representative 
Bonior's Whip office and Congressional office in 1990-1991, the 
Committee on May 8, 1996, determined that the factual 
allegations made in the complaint were unsupported and voted to 
dismiss the complaint.

l. Representative Gerald Solomon

    On April 2, 1996, New York State Assemblyman Richard L. 
Brodsky, and seven of his colleagues filed a complaint against 
Representative Solomon, accompanied by three letters of refusal 
from Members in accordance with Committee Rule 14(e). The 
subject matter of the complaint was a press release issued by 
Representative Solomon, and a letter he had sent to Assemblyman 
Brodsky, both expressing his strong disagreement with the 
position Assemblyman Brodsky had taken regarding a settlement 
agreement which the New York Department of Environmental 
Conservation had entered into with General Electric 
Corporation. The letter included the sentence, ``As Chairman of 
the Rules Committee, I could easily retaliate by involving 
myself in the activities in your Assembly District.'' The 
Committee received a response from Representative Solomon on 
April 4, 1996. In that response Representative Solomon said 
that he had not retaliated in any way and never intended to 
retaliate. In a letter to Representative Solomon of May 8, 
1996, which the Committee publicly released, the Committee 
noted that it had dismissed the complaint, but advised that as 
a Member, he should avoid even the appearance of impropriety 
and be judicious in the language used on official letterhead.

m. Representative Jim McDermott

    On July 17, 1996, Representative Peter King filed a 
complaint against Representative McDermott, a member of this 
Committee. Representative McDermott recused himself from 
consideration of this complaint, and pursuant to clause 
4(e)(2)(D) of House Rule 10, the Speaker pro tempore designated 
Representative Louis Stokes to act as a member of the Committee 
for consideration of this complaint. The complaint alleged that 
Representative McDermott participated in deliberations 
involving ethics complaints filed with the substantial 
assistance of his political action committee fundraiser, and 
thereby allegedly could not discharge his duties on the 
Committee in an impartial manner. The complaint further alleged 
that Representative McDermott's public comments on Committee 
business violated Committee Rule 10(b), which prohibits 
Committee Members and staff from disclosing to ``to any person 
outside the Committee, unless authorized by the Committee, any 
information regarding the Committee's . . . investigative, 
adjudicatory or other proceedings,'' including information 
derived from executive session proceedings.
    The Committee received Representative McDermott's response 
that the charges were without merit on July 23, 1996. On July 
24, 1996, the Committee dismissed the complaint and in a 
publicly released letter said that the information provided in 
the complaint did not overcome the presumption that members of 
the Committee do not have conflicts of interest on a pending 
matter. The Committee also stated that, while several members 
of the Committee had made public statements regarding the work 
of the Committee that could be viewed as ``inconsistent with 
the letter or spirit of our very restrictive rules . . . . the 
Committee expects all members of the Committee to adhere 
rigidly to our rules both in making planned statement or 
unplanned statements.''

                     V. Pending Committee Business

    At the adjournment of the 104th Congress, several 
complaints were still pending before the Committee.
    A complaint was filed against Representative DeLay on 
September 5, 1996, by the Congressional Accountability Project, 
accompanied by three letters of refusal from Members in 
accordance with Committee Rule 14(e).
    A complaint was filed against Representative Shuster on 
September 5, 1996, by the Congressional Accountability Project, 
accompanied by three letters of refusal from Members in 
accordance with Committee Rule 14(e).
    A complaint also was filed against Representative 
Torricelli by Representatives Combest, Dornan, and Hansen on 
July 26, 1996.
    In each case, the respondent furnished the Committee with 
an answer after the House had adjourned sine die, and the 
Committee did not meet to consider these complaints.
    The Committee had considered information regarding 
Representative Greene pending the outcome of other ongoing 
investigations. The Department of Justice notified 
Representative Greene on October 31, 1996, that she was no 
longer under investigation. The Congress had adjourned sine die 
before Representative Greene received this notification.
    According to a ruling by the House Parliamentarian, 
unresolved complaints left pending at the end of a Congress 
expire at the end of that Congress. The Committee in the 105th 
Congress may carry over any complaint by motion or ask the 
complainant to refile the complaint.

Materials From the Inspector General

    On two occasions the Committee received referrals from the 
House Inspector General. In one instance, the Committee 
ascertained from the Member in question information relevant to 
the referral and concluded that no further investigation was 
necessary.
    On another occasion, the Committee received information 
relevant to an audit conducted by the Inspector General's 
office. The House employee most responsible for the matter 
raised in the referral had left the employment of the House by 
the time of the referral.

Justice Department Request for Committee Files

    In 1995, the Committee received a subpoena from the 
Department of Justice to provide documents regarding the 
criminal prosecution of Representative McDade, as well as the 
trial testimony of the custodian of those documents. The 
General Counsel for the House, acting on behalf of the 
Committee and the bipartisan leadership of the House, moved to 
quash the subpoena on the grounds that the documents were 
privileged under the Speech and Debate provisions of the U.S. 
Constitution, and that complying with the subpoena request 
would have a chilling effect on the Committee's ability to 
provide guidance to Members regarding the Code of Conduct. 
Although negotiations between the General Counsel's office and 
the Department of Justice ultimately were unsuccessful, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in favor of 
the House's position.
                               APPENDIX A

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                 Washington, DC, February 15, 1995.

           Memorandum for All Members, Officers and Employees

From: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Nancy L. 
        Johnson, Chairman, Jim McDermott, Ranking Democratic 
        Member.
Subject: Salary Levels At Which Post-employment Restrictions, 
        Outside Earned Income Restrictions, and Financial 
        Disclosure Requirements Apply.
    The Committee has received many telephone inquiries 
regarding the various monetary thresholds and caps affecting 
post-employment restrictions, outside earned income limitations 
and financial disclosure requirements. These matters are 
addressed below.

                      POST-EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS

    The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 established statutory post-
employment restrictions on lobbying activities for all Members 
and officers of the House and certain employees (see House 
Ethics Manual, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 124-127 (1992)). An 
employee is covered if, for at least 60 days during the 
calendar year preceding termination of employment, he or she 
was paid at a rate equal or greater than 75 percent of the 
salary for Members at the time of termination.
    The pay for Members remains $133,600. Therefore, the post-
employment threshold for employees who leave their 
congressional jobs in 1995 is $100,200.

                   OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME LIMITATIONS

    House Rule 47 and title 5 of the Ethics in Government Act 
of 1978 limit the amount of outside earned income a Member or 
senior employee may receive in a calendar year to 15 percent of 
the January 1 rate of pay in effect for level II of the 
Executive Schedule (see House Ethics Manual, p. 101). A 
Member's pay remains $133,600; thus, the outside earned income 
limit for calendar year 1995 remains $20,040.
    The limit applies to all Members and to officers and 
employees paid at a rate of 120 percent of the minimum pay for 
GS-15 of the general schedule for at least 90 days in a 
calendar year. Since the GS-15 rate of basic pay is now 
$67,941, the earned income threshold is $81,530. Locality pay 
is not considered in making this determination.

                          FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

    All House officers and employees paid at a rate of 120 
percent of the minimum pay for GS-15 of the general schedule 
for more than 60 days at any time during the year must file a 
financial disclosure statement (see House Ethics Manual, p. 
161). As noted above, 120 percent of GS-15 is now $81,530.
    Please note that the requirement to file a financial 
disclosure statement covering calendar year 1994 was triggered 
by having earned at a rate of $79,930 for more than 60 days in 
1994. These 1994 financial disclosure statements are due May 
15, 1995, for individuals who continue to be House employees. 
An individual who earns enough to trigger the reporting 
requirement and leaves the House payroll must file a 
termination disclosure report, due 30 days after the date of 
termination.
          * * * * * * *

                           Calendar Year 1995

Post-employment threshold.....................................  $100,200
Financial disclosure threshold................................    81,530
Outside earned income threshold...............................    81,530
Outside earned income cap.....................................    20,040
                    ____________________________________________________
                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                     Washington, DC, April 4, 1995.

           Memorandum for All Members, Officers and Employees

From: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Nancy L. 
        Johnson, Chairman, Jim McDermott, Ranking Democratic 
        Member.
Subject: Revised Solicitation Guidelines.

              SUMMARY OF NEW RESTRICTIONS ON SOLICITATION

    In this Memorandum, the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct announces two new restrictions on solicitation by 
Members, officers, and employees of the House:

          1. No Member, officer, or employee of the House may 
        solicit funds for any organization (other than 
        campaigns and other political entities) which is 
        established or controlled by Members of Congress, 
        unless the organization's principal activities are 
        unrelated to a Member's official duties.
          2. A Member may no longer use a facsimile of official 
        stationery for his or her own campaign.

These new restrictions are discussed in more detail in the 
general discussion of the rules on solicitation which follows.

                        SOLICITATION GUIDELINES

    A government-wide restriction on the solicitation of funds, 
codified at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353, bars Members, officers, and 
employees of the House from asking for or accepting anything of 
value from anyone who seeks official action from the House, 
does business with the House, or has interests that may be 
substantially affected by the performance of official duties. 
The statute covers the solicitation of ``anything of value,'' 
regardless of whether the official personally benefits from it. 
The only exceptions are those expressly permitted by the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as supervising 
ethics office for the House.

A. Soliciting for Charities and Other Organizations

    On October 9, 1990, the Committee announced a generic 
exception from the solicitation restriction for efforts on 
behalf of charities qualified under section 170(c) of the 
Internal Revenue Code, so long as no official resources are 
used, no official endorsement is implied, and no direct 
personal benefit results for the soliciting Member. The same 
announcement explained that questions regarding solicitations 
on behalf of other entities would be decided as they arise.
    The Committee has generally granted exceptions to 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 7353 to allow Members, officers, and employees to solicit 
funds on behalf of non-profit organizations, subject to the 
same restrictions that apply to efforts on behalf of a 
qualified charity, i.e., no official resources may be used, no 
official endorsement may be implied, and no direct personal 
benefit results. No solicitation may bear official letterhead, 
``Congress of the United States,'' ``House of 
Representatives,'' ``official business,'' or the Great Seal 
(House Rule 43, clause 11; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 713). Moreover, 
regulations of the House Office Building Commission prohibit 
soliciting and other nongovernmental activities in facilities 
of the House of Representatives. Reprinted in House Ethics 
Manual, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 235-237 (1992).
    While each of these restrictions on solicitation continues 
to apply, it is now the further policy of this Committee that 
Members, officers, and employees of the House may not solicit 
funds for any organization--regardless of tax status--which is 
established or controlled by Members of Congress. The only 
exceptions are campaigns and other political entities (see 
below), and organizations whose principal activities are 
unrelated to a Member's official duties. The Committee believes 
that, in light of the relationship between such an organization 
and its affiliated Members, there is an inherent risk that its 
operations will improperly subsidize the operations of 
congressional offices in violation of House Rule 45.
    Questions as to whether an organization's activities are 
unrelated to a Member's official duties should be directed to 
the Committee's Office of Advice and Education at 225-3787.
    Example 1. Member A has been asked to solicit funds on 
behalf of Organization V, a charity which is qualified under 
Sec. 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. It was not 
established, nor is it controlled, by Members of Congress. 
Member A may solicit funds on behalf of Organization V, subject 
to the restrictions set forth above (no use of official 
resources, etc.).
    Example 2. Member B has been asked to solicit funds on 
behalf of Organization W, a non-profit social welfare 
organization which is not qualified under Sec. 170(c). It was 
not established, not is it controlled, by Members of Congress. 
Because Organization W does not fall within the generic 
exception which applies to Sec. 170(c) organizations, Member B 
must obtain written approval from the Committee before 
soliciting funds on behalf of Organization W.
    Example 3. Member C has been asked to solicit funds on 
behalf of Organization X, an educational foundation which is 
qualified under Sec. 170(c). It was established by Members of 
Congress. Its purpose is to provide Members of Congress with 
information and research about pending legislation. Because the 
principal activities of Organization X are related to a 
Member's official duties, Member C may not solicit funds on 
behalf of Organization X.
    Example 4. Member D wishes to solicit funds on behalf of 
Organization Y, a local arts organization which is qualified 
under Sec. 170(c). It was established by Member D. Because the 
principal activities of Organization Y are unrelated to a 
Member's official duties, Member D may solicit funds on behalf 
of Organization Y, subject to the restrictions set forth above 
(no use of official resources, etc.).
    Example 5. Organization Z asks Member E to send out a 
fundraising letter on its behalf on Member E's congressional 
letterhead. Member E may not do so.

B. Political Fundraising

    The Committee does not construe 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353 to 
prevent Members, officers, or employees of the House from 
raising funds for campaigns or other political entities. 
Members, officers, and employees are thus not required to seek 
or obtain this Committee's permission to engage in campaign or 
political fundraising. They must, however, comply with the 
following statutes, rules and regulations which govern the 
solicitation and acceptance of campaign funds.
    No Use of Official Resources. Under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a) 
and under the regulations of the Committee on House Oversight, 
official resources and allowances may be used only for official 
activities. Members and House employees are thus prohibited 
from using any official resources (such as congressional 
letterhead and telephones, copiers, and fax machines in 
congressional offices), to solicit campaign funds.
    No Solicitation from Federal Employees. Federal criminal 
law (18 U.S.C. Sec. 602) prohibits Members of Congress, 
candidates for Congress, and Federal employees from knowingly 
soliciting political contributions from Federal employees, 
including employees of the House of Representatives. The 
statute does not, however, apply to soliciting political 
contributions from Members of Congress.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Thus, while neither Members nor House employees may knowingly 
solicit campaign contributions from House employees, both Members and 
employees may solicit contributions from Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The statute prohibits the ``knowing'' solicitation of 
contributions from Federal employees; inadvertent 
solicitations, such as when part of a general fundraising 
campaign aimed at the public at large, do not violate the 
statute. Moreover, it prohibits only the solicitation, and not 
the receipt, of political contributions from Federal 
employees.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ However, under a separate provision of the federal criminal 
code (18 U.S.C. Sec. 603), a congressional employee may not make 
political contributions to his or her employing Member or employing 
authority. House Ethics Manual, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 287-90 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No Solicitation in Federal Offices. Federal criminal law 
(18 U.S.C. Sec. 607) makes it unlawful to solicit campaign 
contributions ``in any room or building occupied in the 
discharge of official duties'' by any Federal employee. 
Moreover, regulations of the House Office Building Commission 
prohibit soliciting and other nongovernmental activities in 
facilities of the House. Reprinted in House Ethics Manual at 
235-37. Thus, campaign contributions may not be solicited in 
the Capitol, House office buildings, or in district offices. 
(This statute also prohibits the receipt of campaign 
contributions in Federal office buildings; however, 
contributions received in congressional offices may be 
accepted, provided that they were not solicited in a manner 
which directed the contributor to send the contribution to the 
congressional office, and that they are forwarded within seven 
days to the appropriate campaign organization.)
    No Use of Facsimile of Official Stationery. While each of 
the above restrictions continues to apply to political 
fundraising, it is now the further policy of the Committee that 
Members may no longer use facsimiles of their official 
stationery for campaign purposes. House Rule 43, clause 11, 
provides:

        A Member of the House of Representatives shall not 
        authorize or otherwise allow a non-House individual, 
        group, or organization to use the words ``Congress of 
        the United States'', ``House of Representatives'', or 
        ``Official Business'', or any combination of words 
        thereof, on any letterhead or envelope.

In 1979, when the Committee issued an Advisory Opinion 
(reprinted in House Ethics Manual at 325-27) regarding this 
rule, it determined that the phrase ``non-House individual, 
group, or organization'' in the rule did not extend to a 
Member's principal campaign committee or to the Democratic and 
Republican Congressional Campaign Committees. The Committee 
therefore took the position that the rule would not prevent a 
Member from using a facsimile of official stationary (which is 
likely to include ``Congress of the United States'', ``House of 
Representatives'', or both) for his or her own campaign. Since 
a letter advocating a Member's reelection or soliciting 
campaign contributions must include a conspicuous statement 
indicating the sponsor of the communication (generally, the 
campaign committee),\3\ it was thought unlikely that such a 
letter would be misinterpreted as an official communication 
from the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441d. Note that this statute requires an 
affirmative disclosure of the source of the communication (e.g., ``Paid 
for by the Doe for Congress Committee''); a mere statement of who is 
not the source (e.g., ``Not printed at Government expense'') does not 
suffice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, since the 1979 Advisory Opinion was published, 
Congress has amended the law relating to official-appearing 
stationery. Under the Deceptive Mailings Prevention Act of 1990 
(39 U.S.C. Sec. 3001(h)-(i)), any solicitation by a non-
governmental entity, which uses any insignia, term or symbol 
implying Federal Government connection, endorsement, or 
approval, must carry a disclaimer, both on the internal 
documents and on the envelope, conspicuously stating that it is 
not an official mailing. The term ``nongovernmental entity'' in 
the Act applies to a Member's campaign. See House Ethics Manual 
at 281-82. Moreover, two provisions of the Federal criminal 
code militate against the use of facsimiles of official 
stationery for campaign mailings. One, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 713, 
prohibits the knowing display of a likeness or facsimile of the 
Great Seal on (among other things) stationery, in a manner 
reasonably calculated to convey a false impression of 
sponsorship or approval by the U.S. Government; display of the 
Seal on stationery used for solicitation of funds or political 
support has been regarded by the Department of Justice as a 
violation of this provision. See House Ethics Manual at 282.\4\ 
Second, as noted above, it is unlawful to solicit or receive 
campaign contributions in any Federal office building. Campaign 
solicitations bearing letterhead listing the addresses of a 
Member's offices could be viewed by the Department of Justice 
as violating this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ The former General Counsel of the House had distinguished the 
Great Seal from ``congressional seals,'' which may be used by Members 
on Christmas cards and other items that are neither printed nor mailed 
at official expense. See House Ethics Manual at 282. Nevertheless, to 
avoid any dispute as to whether ``congressional seals'' are facsimiles 
of the Great Seal, Members are encouraged to use a likeness of the 
Capitol Dome on campaign stationery instead. The Dome is in the public 
domain and therefore is not protected in the same manner as the Great 
Seal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of these provisions, and to ensure that the public 
is not misled by campaign solicitations which may appear to be 
official mailings, the Committee declares that it will no 
longer interpret Rule 43, clause 11, to exclude Members' 
campaigns and party campaign committees. As a result, as of May 
1, 1995, Members may no longer use facsimiles of their official 
stationery for campaign purposes, including fundraising 
letters.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Other information which is displayed on official stationery, 
such as the district served by the Member and the Member's committee 
assignments, may be used on campaign stationery. Use of this 
information is not restricted by Rule 43, clause 11, or by the statutes 
cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Example 1. Member A wishes to send a letter soliciting 
funds for his own campaign. The letter will be on his campaign 
stationery, which contains a depiction of the Capitol Dome, the 
words ``A for Congress,'' the address and telephone number of 
Member A's campaign office, and a statement that the letter was 
``Paid for by the A for Congress Committee.'' Member A may send 
the letter, subject to the restrictions set forth above (no use 
of official resources, etc.).
    Example 2. Member B wishes to send a fundraising letter for 
a candidate for governor in her home state, on the candidate's 
campaign stationery. Member B may sign the letter.
    Example 3. Member C wishes to send a letter soliciting 
funds for his own campaign. The letter will be on stationery 
which contains the words ``U.S. House of Representatives,'' and 
the address and telephone number of Member C's congressional 
offices. Member C may not send the letter, because Rule 43, 
clause 11, prohibits the use of the phrase ``U.S. House of 
Representatives'' by non-House organizations, and because a 
campaign solicitation bearing letterhead listing a Member's 
congressional offices could be viewed as violating the law 
prohibiting the solicitation of campaign contributions in 
Federal office buildings.
    If you have questions or would like further information, 
please call the Committee's Office of Advice and Education at 
225-3787.
                              ----------                              

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                     Washington, DC, July 12, 1995.

           Memorandum for All Members, Officers and Employees

From: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Nancy L. 
        Johnson, Chairman, Jim McDermott, Ranking Democratic 
        Member.
Subject: Classified Information Oath.

                               background

    On January 4, 1995, a new provision was added to the Code 
of Official Conduct, Rule XLIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives. The new provision, clause 13, prescribed an 
oath to be executed by all Members, Officers and employees of 
the House before obtaining access to classified information. 
The oath reads as follows:

        I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not 
        disclose any classified information received in the 
        course of my service with the House of Representatives, 
        except as authorized by House of Representatives (sic) 
        or in accordance with its rules.

    The Committee has been asked to clarify the obligations 
placed on Members by the oath. Pursuant to its authority over 
measures related to the Code of Official Conduct, the Committee 
issues the following guidance.

                             scope of oath

    The Committee agrees that the oath's reference to 
information received ``in the course of . . . service in the 
House'' may lead to confusion. It has been suggested that this 
phrase covers only that classified information furnished to a 
Member by the House of Representatives or by the Executive 
Branch, such as at a hearing, briefing, or in response to 
written requests. Others suggest that the phrase includes any 
classified information provided to a Member by any person 
during the Member's term in office.
    The Committee believes that the latter formulation is 
correct and best effectuates the intent of the rule.

                            duty to inquire

    The Committee further believes that to give full effect to 
the purpose of the oath, each Member, when in doubt as to the 
classification of what a member believes to be sensitive 
information in his or her possession, must make a good faith 
effort to determine if it is classified before disclosing it to 
the public. Such a determination can be made by contacting the 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or other 
appropriate Committee of jurisdiction.
                              ----------                              

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                               Memorandum

To: All Members, Officers, and Employees of the House of 
        Representatives.
From: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Nancy L. 
        Johnson, Chairman, Jim McDermott, Ranking Democratic 
        Member.
Subject: New Gift Rule.
Date: December 7, 1995.
    On November 16, 1995, the House adopted a new rule, Rule 
52, banning most gifts. The new restrictions go into effect on 
January 1, 1996, and govern every Member, officer, and employee 
of the House. Members should insure that all of their staff, in 
Washington and in every district office, are aware of this rule 
change.
    Rule 52 will prohibit Members, officers, and employees from 
accepting any gift, except as provided in the rule. There is no 
more ``gift limit,'' below which a gift may be accepted. Unless 
a gift falls into one of the specific exceptions stated in the 
rule, it may not be accepted. If a Member or employee receives 
an impermissible item that is perishable, it may be donated to 
charity or discarded. All other unacceptable items must be 
returned or purchased at fair market value.
    There are general exceptions for gifts from relatives; 
personal friends; and other Members, officers, and employees of 
the House or the Senate. In addition, a number of items are 
exempt, notably: personal hospitality; campaign contributions; 
contributions to legal expense funds; informational materials 
sent to congressional offices; anything paid for by the Federal 
Government or a State or local government; opportunities 
available to the public at large or other groups unrelated to 
congressional employment; free attendance provided by the 
sponsor of a widely attended event; food or refreshments of 
nominal value offered other than as part of a meal; and other 
items of nominal value, such as caps or T-shirts. This 
memorandum discusses some of the exceptions in detail and lists 
all of them. The full text of the new rule is attached.
    No Meals, No Tickets. Among the biggest changes in the rule 
is the elimination of the local meal exception. A Member or 
employee will no longer be able to accept an invitation to 
lunch or dinner at someone else's expense, unless that person 
is a relative, a personal friend, or a sponsor of an event that 
falls within one of the exceptions listed below. Similarly, 
tickets to sports, musical, or dramatic events may only be 
accepted from relatives and friends, under the new rule. This 
rule applies to all tickets for events taking place on or after 
January 1, 1996, no matter when the tickets are offered.

          Example 1. On December 15, 1995, Laura Lobbyist 
        offers Stanley Staffer tickets to a hockey game taking 
        place in January, 1996. Stanley may not accept.

    Definition. ``Gift'' is defined to mean: ``any gratuity, 
favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, 
or other item having monetary value . . . [including] gifts of 
services, training, transportation, lodging, and meals, whether 
provided in kind, by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, 
or reimbursement after the expense has been incurred.''
    Family and Friends. Gifts from relatives, as defined in the 
Ethics in Government Act,\1\ are exempt from the gift ban. A 
new exception has been created for gifts provided on the basis 
of personal friendship, unless the Member, officer, or employee 
has reason to believe that a particular gift was given because 
of his or her official position. In determining whether the 
gift was provided because of friendship rather than because of 
official position, the rule explains that one should consider 
factors such as: the history of the relationship (including any 
previous exchange of gifts); whether the giver personally paid 
for the gift or sought a tax deduction or business 
reimbursement for the gift; and whether the giver gave similar 
gifts to other Members, officers, or employees. It is up to the 
recipient to make this determination for gifts worth up to 
$250; gifts exceeding $250 require this Committee's approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Ethics in Government Act defines relative as a ``father, 
mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, great aunt, great 
uncle, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, grandfather, 
grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, 
son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, 
stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half 
brother, half sister, . . . the grandfather or grandmother of [one's] 
spouse . . . , and shall be deemed to include [one's] fiance or 
fiancee.'' 5 U.S.C. app. 6, Sec. 109(16).

          Example 2. Joe College was Roy Representative's 
        college roommate. Every year since they were freshmen, 
        Joe has sent Roy a sweater on his birthday. Two years 
        ago, Joe became a lobbyist for the Widget Association. 
        He has continued to send sweaters on Roy's birthday. To 
        the best of Roy's knowledge, Joe pays for the sweaters 
        personally and does not deduct their cost as a business 
        expense. On his birthday in 1996, Roy may accept the 
        sweater.
          Example 3. On January 1, 1996, Joe College takes a 
        job with the American Sweater Association. To 
        demonstrate the fine quality of American sweaters, Joe 
        sends a free sweater to every Member of Congress, 
        including Roy. None of the Members, including Roy, may 
        keep the sweaters.
          Example 4. Ever since she was elected to Congress 10 
        years ago, Carla Congresswoman has been going out to 
        lunch periodically with Edna Executive. They discuss 
        legislative issues of interest to Edna's company and 
        Edna always picks up the tab, using her corporate 
        credit card. Aside from these lunches, the two never 
        socialize. As of January 1, Carla will have to pay her 
        share of the meal if she wishes to have lunch with 
        Edna. Although they have known each other for years, 
        theirs is not a ``personal friendship.''

    While gifts from relatives are exempt from the gift ban, 
gifts to relatives or close associates of a Member or employee 
may be prohibited under the new rule. The rule states that 
prohibited gifts include anything given to a family member or 
other person based on a relationship with the Member, officer, 
or employee if the latter knows and acquiesces and has reason 
to believe the gift was given because of his or her official 
position. If food is given to a Member, officer, or employee 
and that person's spouse or dependent, only the Member, 
officer, or employee's food counts.

          Example 5. Every January, Larry Lobbyist sends a 
        leather-bound pocket appointment calendar to Moe Member 
        at his office. Knowing that he may not do this in 1996, 
        he sends one to Mrs. Member at home, instead. The 
        calendar would be deemed an impermissible gift to Moe.

    Food. As stated above, the local meal exception has been 
eliminated. Thus, one-on-one or small group lunches where 
someone other than the Member or employee pays will, for the 
most part, be banned (unless the host is a relative or a 
personal friend).
    Meals are still permissible (although they must be 
disclosed) in connection with travel to a meeting, speaking 
engagement, fact-finding trip or similar event in connection 
with official duties. Similarly, food and drink may be accepted 
in connection with outside business or other unofficial 
activities, job interviews, campaign events, in connection with 
the receipt of honorary degrees and awards for public service, 
when provided as an integral part of training, when authorized 
under the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, the Mutual 
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act (that is, in connection 
with foreign government-sponsored travel) or any other statute, 
and when provided by a unit of Federal, State, or local 
government. In addition, Members and staff may still accept 
food and refreshments of nominal value offered other than as 
part of a meal (e.g., coffee and donuts, hors d'oeuvres at a 
reception). Finally, a Member or staff person may accept an 
offer of free attendance at a widely attended event, which may 
include food, as described below.

          Example 6. Lucy Lobbyist wants to meet with Carl 
        Congressman to discuss a bill that is scheduled to come 
        to the floor the next day. Susie Scheduler says that 
        Carl is busy all day. Lucy says, ``Well, he has to eat. 
        Let me take him to lunch or dinner and we can discuss 
        the bill then.'' Carl may meet with Lucy, but he has to 
        pay for his own meal.
          Example 7. Connie Constituent comes to Washington and 
        drops by to see Myrna Member. Connie says, ``I really 
        admire the positions you've taken and I would be 
        honored if you would let me take you to lunch.'' Myrna 
        must pay for her own meal.
          Example 8. Godfrey Governor invites the state's 
        congressional delegation to an official dinner at the 
        Governor's Mansion. Since the dinner is provided by the 
        State government, the delegation may attend.
          Example 9. Russell Representative is on a CODEL to 
        Ruritania. The Ruritanian Foreign Ministry hosts a 
        dinner party for the delegation. Since meals in a 
        foreign country provided by that country's government 
        are authorized under the Foreign Gifts and Decorations 
        Act, the Members may attend.
          Example 10. While in Ruritania, a local company 
        seeking opportunities to do business with Russell's 
        state invites Russell to a dinner with the company's 
        top two officials. Russell must pay for his own dinner.
          Example 11. A home-state company hosts a cocktail 
        reception for a congressional delegation. Since the 
        food and drink provided there to any individual is of 
        nominal value and not part of a meal, the delegation 
        may attend.
          Example 12. A committee is working late into the 
        night marking up a bill. Atticus Attorney offers to 
        send over Chinese food for the staff, who he knows will 
        not have time to go out for dinner. The staff must 
        decline.
          Example 13. The day after the markup, Charles 
        Chairman offers to take the whole staff out to lunch. 
        Since this is a gift from a Member, the staff may 
        accept.

    Widely attended events. A Member, officer, or employee may 
accept an offer of free attendance from the sponsor of a widely 
attended event where:
     the Member or employee is speaking or performing a 
ceremonial function; or
     attendance is appropriate to the performance of 
the official duties or representative function of the Member or 
employee.
    The term ``widely attended event'' derives from executive 
branch standards of conduct. The legislative history of this 
provision quotes with approval the executive branch regulation 
which states: ``A gathering is widely attended if, for example, 
it is open to members from throughout a given industry or 
profession or if those in attendance represent a range of 
persons interested in a given matter.'' If this standard is 
met, the attendee may accept a waiver of all or part of a 
conference fee, local transportation, food, refreshments, 
entertainment, and instructional materials furnished to all 
attendees as an integral part of the event, as well as an 
unsolicited offer of free attendance for an accompanying 
individual. The Member or employee may not accept entertainment 
collateral to the event (e.g., theater tickets) or food or 
refreshments that are not provided in a group setting with all 
or substantially all other attendees.

          Example 14. The Chamber of Commerce in Carol 
        Congresswoman's district invites her to the monthly 
        breakfast meeting of its members. Carol may attend and 
        eat breakfast.
          Example 15. A rotary club in Maxwell Member's 
        district holds periodic luncheon meetings of its 
        membership and invites him to one. Maxwell may attend 
        and eat lunch.
          Example 16. A veterans' group in Rhonda 
        Representative's district invites her to a Veterans' 
        Day dinner at the local VFW hall. Rhonda may attend and 
        eat dinner.
          Example 17. The Widget Manufacturers of America is 
        holding its annual conference in Washington, D.C. The 
        group invites Caleb Congressman to be the keynote 
        speaker at dinner the first night. Caleb may give the 
        speech and eat the dinner.
          Example 18. Owen Owner, the owner of a sports team, 
        invites Maury Member to view an upcoming game from his 
        skybox. Even though the game is widely attended, 
        sitting in the skybox is not related to any official, 
        representative, or ceremonial function of Maury's. If 
        Maury wishes to attend the game, he must buy his own 
        ticket.
          Example 19. A new Concert Hall is opening in Central 
        City in Chloe Congresswoman's district. The Central 
        City Symphony invites a number of local officials, 
        including Chloe, to attend the inaugural concert, sit 
        in a place of honor, and be recognized for their help 
        in making the new Hall a reality. Chloe may attend.
          Example 20. Calvin Congressman has announced that 
        this will be his final term in office. In honor of his 
        long and distinguished career in public service, Big 
        Corporation wishes to host a dinner for him. Big plans 
        to invite hundreds of people from the private and 
        public sector, including many Members and employees of 
        Congress. The Members and staff may attend.

    Charity events. A Member or employee may accept a sponsor's 
unsolicited offer of free attendance at a charity event, 
including an entrance fee waiver, local transportation, food, 
refreshments, and entertainment. The Member or employee may 
also, if invited to do so, bring a spouse or child. However, 
gifts of travel or lodging in connection with charity events 
are barred.

          Example 21. The National Association of Do-Gooders is 
        having its annual dinner to raise funds for its 
        charitable activities. Tickets are $500 apiece, but the 
        charity has offered complimentary tickets to Ron 
        Representative and his wife. The Representatives may 
        attend.
          Example 22. MegaCorporation buys a table at the Do-
        Gooders' annual charity dinner. Ron Representative may 
        not accept the invitation of MegaCorporation's CEO to 
        sit at its table.
          Example 23. The Do-Gooders, as another fundraising 
        activity, host a celebrity golf tournament in Palm 
        Springs. The charity asks Ron Representative to be one 
        of the celebrity participants. If Ron wishes to attend, 
        he must pay his own transportation and lodging. He may 
        accept a waiver of the entrance fee and meals that are 
        provided to all participants. He may not accept the bag 
        of golf paraphernalia that the other celebrities 
        receive.

    Travel. The new rule continues to allow Members and staff 
to travel at the expense of private sources to meetings, 
speaking engagements, fact-finding trips and similar events in 
connection with their official duties. The funding of this kind 
of activity is deemed a reimbursement to the House and not a 
gift to the individual traveler. Such travel will remain 
subject to the existing time limits of four days for travel 
within the contiguous 48 states, and seven days (excluding 
travel days) for trips elsewhere. As is currently the case, the 
Committee is authorized to approve longer periods of time upon 
request in advance of the travel. In connection with such 
events, a Member or staffer may accept necessary 
transportation, lodging, food and refreshments, conference fees 
and materials. Travel expenses for a spouse or child may also 
be accepted. Travel expenses may not be accepted from 
registered lobbyists or agents of foreign principals.
    Staff travel requires prior written authorization by the 
supervising Member. All travel expenses accepted in connection 
with official duties must be itemized and disclosed within 30 
days, signed by the Member who is either traveling or approving 
staff travel (see discussion of Disclosure, below). The 
exception for travel related to official duties does not cover 
recreational activities. Stayovers at traveler expense will 
still be permitted.
    Transportation, lodging, food, refreshments, and other 
benefits may also be accepted in connection with: campaign 
events; job interviews; and outside business, employment, or 
other unofficial activities (religious activities, for example) 
of a Member, employee, or spouse. In addition, one may accept 
travel (and associated food, refreshments, and entertainment) 
to receive an honorary degree. Finally, foreign-government 
sponsored travel, as authorized under the Foreign Gifts and 
Decorations Act or Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
Act, continues to be permissible, as described in the House 
Ethics Manual, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 44-47 (1992). The travel 
discussed in this paragraph is not subject to the four- and 
seven-day time limits or the requirement to itemize and 
disclose expenses within 30 days. Any Member or any employee 
who is required to file an annual Financial Disclosure 
Statement will have to disclose the receipt of more than $250 
worth of travel expenses in a single year from any private 
source (other than a relative) on that form.

          Example 24. Stella Staffer volunteers at her church 
        on her own time. Because she helps to organize the 
        church's annual retreat, the church has offered to pay 
        her expenses at the week-long event. Stella may accept.
          Example 25. Alex Aide's wife, Wanda, is a 
        salesperson. Wanda's employer offers a weekend for two 
        in Mexico to the salesperson of the year. In 1996, 
        Wanda wins the award. Alex may accompany Wanda.
          Example 26. Elton Employee is invited to make a work-
        related morning presentation at a conference. The 
        sponsor offers to pay his airfare, meals, and lodging, 
        all of which Elton may accept, as long as he discloses 
        these expenses within 30 days of his return. The 
        sponsor also offers to pay his greens fees at a nearby 
        golf course if he wishes to golf in the afternoon when 
        the conference has recessed. Elton may not accept the 
        greens fees.

    Disclosure. Rule 52 contains three new disclosure 
requirements, for travel authorizations, travel expenses, and 
payments in lieu of honoraria by lobbyists.
    Any employee who travels at private expenses must secure 
advance authorization from his or her supervising Member or 
officer, specifying: the name of the employee; the name of the 
funding source; and the time, place, and purpose of the travel. 
As part of this authorization, the Member must sign a statement 
that the travel is in connection with official duties and would 
not create the appearance that the traveler is using public 
office for private gain. The authorization must be filed with 
the Clerk within 30 days of return.
    In addition, all privately funded travel expenses, for 
Members and staff, must be itemized and disclosed within 30 
days of return. This disclosure must be signed by the Member 
who is personally traveling or authorizing staff travel and 
must include:
     good faith estimates of total expenditures for (1) 
transportation, (2) lodging, (3) meals, and (4) other expenses;
     a determination that all such expenses are 
``necessary'' (that is, reasonable, within the relevant day 
limits, and not recreational); and
     (for Member travel) a determination that the 
travel is in connection with official duties and would not 
create the appearance that the Member is using public office 
for private gain.
    Moreover, within 30 days of designating a charity to 
receive a payment in lieu of an honorarium from a lobbyist, a 
Member, officer or employee must report to the Clerk: (1) the 
name and address of the lobbyist; (2) the date and amount of 
the contribution; and (3) the name and address of the 
charitable organization designated.
    The Clerk shall make all these reports available to the 
public as soon as possible after filing. The Committee is 
developing forms for these disclosures.
    Political events. Rule 52 does not limit Member or staff 
participation in political events. Political contributions, for 
any Federal, state, or local campaign, are specifically exempt 
from the ban, as is attendance at a fundraising event sponsored 
by any political organization. Political organizations may also 
provide food, refreshments, lodging, transportation, and other 
benefits in connection with fundraising or campaign events 
sponsored by those organizations. In addition, free attendance 
at a widely attended convention or other event may be provided 
by its sponsor.
    Items of nominal value. Rule 52 permits a Member or 
employee to accept ``an item of nominal value such as a 
greeting card, baseball cap, or a T-shirt.'' Other nominal 
value items might include mugs, pens, and flowers. There is no 
precise dollar figure for ``nominal value.'' Members should use 
their common sense. A Member could accept an inexpensive pen 
imprinted with the corporate logo of a constituent company, or 
an occasional bouquet of flowers. The Member should decline a 
Mont Blanc pen with his or her initials engraved on it, or 
flowers for the office every week from the same lobbyist.
    Lobbyists are subject to additional restrictions, i.e., 
they may not provide travel or personal hospitality to Members 
or staff, contribute to Members' or staffers' legal expense 
funds, support conferences or retreats for Members or staff, 
contribute to entities maintained or controlled by Members or 
staff, or donate to charities at Members' or staffers' 
recommendation (other than in lieu of honoraria). The ban on 
accepting personal hospitality from lobbyists, however, does 
not apply where the lobbyist is a bona fide personal friend, as 
defined above.

          Example 27. Joe College, Roy Representative's college 
        roommate, is a lobbyist for the sweater industry. Joe 
        and Roy and their wives have socialized together since 
        college. Joe invites Roy and his wife to spend a week 
        in August with the Colleges at their beach house on 
        Hilton Head. Assuming that Joe does not seek 
        reimbursement or a tax deduction for the expense of 
        entertaining Roy, Roy may accept.
          Example 28. Joe, the sweater lobbyist, offers to take 
        his friend, Roy Representative, on a three-day tour of 
        Southern sweater plants. Roy may not accept. If the 
        Swank Sweater Company invites Roy on a tour, he may 
        accept.

    Exceptions. In summary, all gifts are banned with the 
following exceptions:
    1. Anything for which the Member, officer, or employee pays 
market value or which is promptly returned (perishable items 
may be donated to charity or destroyed).
    2. Political contributions.
    3. Gifts from relatives.
    4. Anything provided by an individual on the basis of a 
personal friendship, unless the Member, officer, or employee 
has reason to believe that, under the circumstances, the gift 
was provided because of the official position. In deciding, the 
Member, officer, or employee shall consider the history of 
relationship (including any previous exchange of gifts), 
whether the giver personally paid for the gift or sought a tax 
deduction or business reimbursement for the gift, and whether 
the giver gave similar gifts to other Member, officer, or 
employees.
    5. Contributions to legal expense funds (except from 
lobbyists and foreign agents).
    6. Any gift from another Member, officer, or employee of 
the House or Senate.
    7. Food, refreshments, lodging and other benefits (a) 
resulting from outside business, employment, or other 
activities of the Member, officer, or employee or spouse; (b) 
customarily provided by a prospective employer; or (c) provided 
by a political organization in connection with a fundraising or 
campaign event.
    8. Pensions and other benefits from a former employer.
    9. Informational materials (e.g. books, periodicals, 
audiotapes, and videotapes) sent to the office.
    10. Awards or prizes given to competitors in contests or 
events open to the public, including random drawings.
    11. Honorary degrees and other non-monetary awards in 
recognition of public service (including associated food, 
refreshments, entertainment, and, in the case of degrees, 
travel).
    12. Training (including food and refreshments provided to 
all attendees), if in the interest of the House.
    13. Inheritances.
    14. Any item the receipt of which is authorized by any 
statute, including the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act and 
the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act.
    15. Anything paid for by Federal, state, or local 
government, or secured by the Government under a Government 
contract.
    16. Personal hospitality, unless from a registered lobbyist 
or agent of a foreign principal.
    17. Free attendance at a widely attended event if the 
Member, officer, or employee is participating, performing a 
ceremonial function, or attendance is appropriate to the 
performance of the official duties or representative function 
of the Member, officer, or employee. The Member, officer, or 
employee may also accept an unsolicited offer of free 
attendance for an accompanying individual.
    18. Opportunities and benefits (including bank loans) which 
are available to the public, all federal employees, or some 
other group.
    19. Plaques, trophies, and other commemorative items.
    20. Anything for which, in an unusual case, a waiver is 
granted by this Committee.
    21. Food or refreshments of a nominal value offered other 
than as a part of a meal.
    22. Home-state products that are intended primarily for 
promotional purposes, such as display or free distribution, and 
that are of minimal value to any individual recipient.
    23. An item of nominal value, such as a cap or T-shirt.
    Enforcement. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
is solely authorized to interpret, enforce, and issue guidance 
on the rule. If you have any questions, please call the 
Committee's Office of Advice and Education at 225-3787.

                             Rule LII [52]

Gift rule

    1. (a) No Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
Representatives shall knowingly accept a gift except as 
provided in this rule.
          (b) (1) For the purpose of this rule, the term 
        ``gift'' means any gratuity, favor, discount, 
        entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other 
        item having monetary value. The term includes gifts of 
        services, training, transportation, lodging, and meals, 
        whether provided in kind, by purchase of a ticket, 
        payment in advance, or reimbursement after the expense 
        has been incurred.
                  (2) (A) A gift to a family member of a 
                Member, officer, or employee, or a gift to any 
                other individual based on that individual's 
                relationship with the Member, officer, or 
                employee, shall be considered a gift to the 
                Member, officer, or employee if it is given 
                with the knowledge and acquiescence of the 
                Member, officer, or employee and the Member, 
                officer, or employee has reason to believe the 
                gift was given because of the official position 
                of the Member, officer, or employee.
                          (B) If food or refreshment is 
                        provided at the same time and place to 
                        both a Member, officer, or employee and 
                        the spouse or dependent thereof, only 
                        the food or refreshment provided to the 
                        Member, officer, or employee shall be 
                        treated as a gift for purposes of this 
                        rule.
          (c) The restrictions in paragraph (a) shall not apply 
        to the following:
                  (1) Anything for which the Member, officer, 
                or employee pays the market value, or does not 
                use and promptly returns to the donor.
                  (2) A contribution, as defined in section 
                301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
                1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully 
                made under that Act, a lawful contribution for 
                election to a State or local government office, 
                or attendance at a fundraising event sponsored 
                by a political organization described in 
                section 527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
                1986.
                  (3) A gift from a relative as described in 
                section 109(16) of title I of the Ethics in 
                Government Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-521).
                  (4) (A) Anything provided by an individual on 
                the basis of a personal friendship unless the 
                Member, officer, or employee has reason to 
                believe that, under the circumstances, the gift 
                was provided because of the official position 
                of the Member, officer, or employee and not 
                because of the personal friendship.
                          (B) In determining whether a gift is 
                        provided on the basis of personal 
                        friendship, the Member, officer, or 
                        employee shall consider the 
                        circumstances under which the gift was 
                        offered, such as:
                                  (i) The history of the 
                                relationship between the 
                                individual giving the gift and 
                                the recipient of the gift, 
                                including any previous exchange 
                                of gifts between such 
                                individuals.
                                  (ii) Whether to the actual 
                                knowledge of the Member, 
                                officer, or employee the 
                                individual who gave the gift 
                                personally paid for the gift or 
                                sought a tax deduction or 
                                business reimbursement for the 
                                gift.
                                  (iii) Whether to the actual 
                                knowledge of the Member, 
                                officer, or employee the 
                                individual who gave the gift 
                                also at the same time gave the 
                                same or similar gifts to other 
                                Members, officers, or 
                                employees.
                  (5) Except as provided in clause 3(c), a 
                contribution or other payment to a legal 
                expense fund established for the benefit of a 
                Member, officer, or employee that is otherwise 
                lawfully made in accordance with the 
                restrictions and disclosure requirements of the 
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
                  (6) Any gift from another Member, officer, or 
                employee of the Senate or the House of 
                Representatives.
                  (7) Food, refreshments, lodging, 
                transportation, and other benefits--
                          (A) resulting from the outside 
                        business or employment activities (or 
                        other outside activities that are not 
                        connected to the duties of the Member, 
                        officer, or employee as an 
                        officeholder) of the Member, officer, 
                        or employee, or the spouse of the 
                        Member, officer, or employee, if such 
                        benefits have not been offered or 
                        enhanced because of the official 
                        position of the Member, officer, or 
                        employee and are customarily provided 
                        to others in similar circumstances:
                          (B) customarily provided by a 
                        prospective employer in connection with 
                        bona fide employment discussions; or
                          (C) provided by a political 
                        organization described in section 
                        527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
                        1986 in connection with a fundraising 
                        or campaign event sponsored by such an 
                        organization.
                  (8) Pension and other benefits resulting from 
                continued participation in an employee welfare 
                and benefits plan maintained by a former 
                employer.
                  (9) Informational materials that are sent to 
                the office of the Member, officer, or employee 
                in the form of books, articles, periodicals, 
                other written materials, audiotapes, 
                videotapes, or other forms of communication.
                  (10) Awards or prizes which are given to 
                competitors in contests or events open to the 
                public, including random drawings.
                  (11) Honorary degrees (and associated travel, 
                food, refreshments, and entertainment) and 
                other bona fide, nonmonetary awards presented 
                in recognition of public service (and 
                associated food, refreshments, and 
                entertainment provided in the presentation of 
                such degrees and awards).
                  (12) Training (including food and 
                refreshments furnished to all attendees as an 
                integral part of the training) provided to a 
                Member, officer, or employee, if such training 
                is in the interest of the House of 
                Representatives.
                  (13) Bequests, inheritances, and other 
                transfers at death.
                  (14) Any item, the receipt of which is 
                authorized by the Foreign Gifts and Decorations 
                Act, the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
                Exchange Act, or any other statute.
                  (15) Anything which is paid for by the 
                Federal Government, by a State or local 
                government, or secured by the Government under 
                a Government contract.
                  (16) A gift of personal hospitality (as 
                defined in section 109(14) of the Ethics in 
                Government Act) of an individual other than a 
                registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign 
                principal.
                  (17) Free attendance at a widely attended 
                event permitted pursuant to paragraph (d).
                  (18) Opportunities and benefits which are--
                          (A) available to the public or to a 
                        class consisting of all Federal 
                        employees, whether or not restricted on 
                        the basis of geographic consideration;
                          (B) offered to members of a group or 
                        class in which membership is unrelated 
                        to congressional employment;
                          (C) offered to members of an 
                        organization such as an employees' 
                        association or congressional credit 
                        union, in which membership is related 
                        to congressional employment and similar 
                        opportunities are available to large 
                        segments of the public through 
                        organizations of similar size;
                          (D) offered to any group or class 
                        that is not defined in a manner that 
                        specifically discriminates among 
                        Government employees on the basis of 
                        branch of Government or type of 
                        responsibility, or on a basis that 
                        favors those of higher rank or rate of 
                        pay;
                          (E) in the form of loans from banks 
                        and other financial institutions on 
                        terms generally available to the 
                        public; or
                          (F) in the form of reduced membership 
                        or other fees for participation in 
                        organization activities offered to all 
                        Government employees by professional 
                        organizations if the only restrictions 
                        on membership relate to professional 
                        qualifications.
                  (19) A plaque, trophy, or other item that is 
                substantially commemorative in nature and which 
                is intended for presentation.
                  (20) Anything for which, in an unusual case, 
                a waiver is granted by the Committee on 
                Standards of Official Conduct.
                  (21) Food or refreshments of a nominal value 
                offered other than as a part of a meal.
                  (22) Donations of products from the State 
                that the Member represents that are intended 
                primarily for promotional purposes, such as 
                display or free distribution, and are of 
                minimal value to any individual recipient.
                  (23) An item of nominal value such as a 
                greeting card, baseball cap, or a T-shirt.
          (d)(1) A Member, officer, or employee may accept an 
        offer of free attendance at a widely attended 
        convention, conference, symposium, forum, panel 
        discussion, dinner, viewing, reception, or similar 
        event, provided by the sponsor of the event, if--
                  (A) the Member, officer, or employee 
                participates in the event as a speaker or a 
                panel participant, by presenting information 
                related to Congress or matters before Congress, 
                or by performing a ceremonial function 
                appropriate to the Member's, officer's, or 
                employee's official position; or
                  (B) attendance at the event is appropriate to 
                the performance of the official duties or 
                representative function of the Member, officer, 
                or employee.
          (2) A Member, officer, or employee who attends an 
        event described in subparagraph (1) may accept a 
        sponsor's unsolicited offer of free attendance at the 
        event for an accompanying individual.
          (3) A Member, officer, or employee, or the spouse or 
        dependent thereof, may accept a sponsor's unsolicited 
        offer of free attendance at a charity event, except 
        that reimbursement for transportation and lodging may 
        not be accepted in connection with the event.
          (4) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `free 
        attendance' may include waiver of all or part of a 
        conference or other fee, the provision of local 
        transportation, or the provision of food, refreshments, 
        entertainment, and instructional materials furnished to 
        all attendees as an integral part of the event. The 
        term does not include entertainment collateral to the 
        event, nor does it include food or refreshments taken 
        other than in a group setting with all or substantially 
        all other attendees.
    (e) No Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift the 
value of which exceeds $250 on the basis of the personal 
friendship exception in paragraph (c)(4) unless the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct issues a written determination 
that such exception applies. No determination under this 
paragraph is required for gifts given on the basis of the 
family relationship exception.
    (f) When it is not practicable to return a tangible item 
because it is perishable, the item may, at the discretion of 
the recipient, be given to an appropriate charity or destroyed.
    2. (a)(1) A reimbursement (including payment in kind) to a 
Member, officer, or employee from a private source other than a 
registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal for 
necessary transportation, lodging and related expenses for 
travel to a meeting, speaking engagement, factfinding trip or 
similar event in connection with the duties of the Member, 
officer, or employee as all officeholder shall be deemed to be 
a reimbursement to the House of Representatives and not a gift 
prohibited by this rule, if the Member, officer, or employee--
          (A) in the case of an employee, receives advance 
        authorization, from the Member of officer under whose 
        direct supervision the employee works, to accept 
        reimbursement, and
          (B) discloses the expenses reimbursed or to be 
        reimbursed and the authorization to the Clerk of the 
        House of Representatives within 30 days after the 
        travel is completed.
    (2) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1), events, the 
activities of which are substantially recreational in nature, 
shall not be considered to be in connection with the duties of 
a Member, officer, or employee as an officeholder.
    (b) Each advance authorization to accept reimbursement 
shall be signed by the member or officer under whose direct 
supervision the employee works and shall include--
          (1) the name of the employee;
          (2) the name of the person who will make the 
        reimbursements;
          (3) the time, place, and purpose of the travel; and
          (4) a determination that the travel is in connection 
        with the duties of the employee as an officeholder and 
        would not create the appearance that the employee is 
        using public office for private gain.
    (c) Each disclosure made under paragraph (a)(1) of expenses 
reimbursed or to be reimbursed shall be signed by the Member or 
officer (in the case of travel by that Member or officer) or by 
the Member or officer under whose direct supervision the 
employee works (in the case of travel by an employee) and shall 
include--
          (1) a good faith estimate of total transportation 
        expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
          (2) a good faith estimate of total lodging expenses 
        reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
          (3) a good faith estimate of total meal expenses 
        reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
          (4) a good faith estimate of the total of other 
        expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
          (5) a determination that all such expenses are 
        necessary transportation, lodging, and related expenses 
        as defined in paragraph (d); and
          (6) in the case of a reimbursement to a Member or 
        officer, a determination that the travel was in 
        connection with the duties of the Member or officer as 
        an officeholder and would not create the appearance 
        that the Member or officer is using public office for 
        private gain.
    (d) For the purposes of this clause, the term `necessary 
transportation, lodging, and related expenses'--
          (1) includes reasonable expenses that are necessary 
        for travel for a period not exceeding 4 days within the 
        United States or 7 days exclusive of travel time 
        outside of the United States unless approved in advance 
        by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct;
          (2) is limited to reasonable expenditures for 
        transportation, lodging, conference fees and materials, 
        and food and refreshments, including reimbursement for 
        necessary transportation, whether or not such 
        transportation occurs within the periods described in 
        subparagraph (1);
          (3) does not include expenditures for recreational 
        activities, nor does it include entertainment other 
        than that provided to all attendees as all integral 
        part of the event, except for activities or 
        entertainment otherwise permissible under this rule; 
        and
          (4) may include travel expenses incurred on behalf of 
        either the spouse or a child of the Member, officer, or 
        employee.
    (e) The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make 
available to the public all advance authorizations and 
disclosure of reimbursement filed pursuant to paragraph (a) as 
soon as possible after they are received.
    3. A gift prohibited by clause 1(a) includes the following:
          (a) Anything provided by a registered lobbyist or an 
        agent of a foreign principal to an entity that is 
        maintained or controlled by a Member, officer, or 
        employee.
          (b) A charitable contribution (as defined in section 
        170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1980) made by a 
        registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal 
        on the basis of a designation, recommendation, or other 
        specification of a Member, officer, or employee (not 
        including a mass mailing or other solicitation directed 
        to a broad category of persons or entities), other than 
        a charitable contribution permitted by clause 4.
          (c) A contribution or other payment by a registered 
        lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal to a legal 
        expense fund established for the benefit of a Member, 
        officer, or employee.
          (d) A financial contribution or expenditure made by a 
        registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal 
        relating to a conference, retreat, or similar event, 
        sponsored by or affiliated with an official 
        congressional organization, for or on behalf of 
        Members, officers, or employees.
    4. (a) A charitable contribution (as defined in section 
170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a 
registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal in lieu 
of an honorarium to a Member, officer, or employee shall not be 
considered a gift under this rule if it is reported as provided 
in paragraph (b).
          (b) A Member, officer, or employee who designates or 
        recommends a contribution to a charitable organization 
        in lieu of honoraria described in paragraph (a) shall 
        report within 30 days after such designation or 
        recommendation to the Clerk of the House of 
        Representatives--
                  (1) the name and address of the registered 
                lobbyist who is making the contribution in lieu 
                of honoraria;
                  (2) the date and amount of the contribution; 
                and
                  (3) the name and address of the charitable 
                organization designated or recommended by the 
                Member. The Clerk of the House of 
                Representatives shall make public information 
                received pursuant to this paragraph as soon as 
                possible after it is received.
    5. For purposes of this rule--
          (a) the term ``registered lobbyist'' means a lobbyist 
        registered under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act 
        or any successor statute; and
          (b) the term ``agent of a foreign principal'' means 
        an agent of a foreign principal registered under the 
        Foreign Agents Registration Act.
    6. All the provisions of this rule shall be interpreted and 
enforced solely by the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is 
authorized to issue guidance on any matter contained in this 
rule.
                              ----------                              

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                 Washington, DC, December 22, 1995.
    Dear Colleague: Under the new gift rule, effective January 
1, 1996, every time you or a member of your staff travels at 
private expense for a meeting, fact-finding trip, or similar 
event in connection with official duties, you will have to file 
a disclosure form with the Clerk within 30 days after you 
return. All forms, including those reporting staff travel, must 
be signed by a Member or Officer of the House. In addition, if 
a lobbyist makes a contribution to charity in lieu of paying 
you an honorarium for a speech, appearance, or article, you 
will have to file a disclosure report within 30 days after 
designating the charity.
    Copies of the forms are attached. Feel free to make more 
copies of these forms in your office. Additional blank forms 
may be obtained from the Legislative Resource Center, Office of 
the Clerk, 1036 Longworth House Office Building (where the 
completed forms are to be filed) or from the Committee on 
Standards of official Conduct HT-2 The Capitol.
    If you have any questions, please call the Committee's 
Office of Advice and Education, at extension 5-3787.
            Sincerely,
                                   Nancy L. Johnson,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Jim McDermott,
                                           Ranking Democratic Member.

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                 MEMBER/OFFICER TRAVEL DISCLOSURE FORM

    This form is for disclosing the receipt of travel expenses 
from private sources for meetings, speaking engagements, fact-
finding trips or similar events in connection with official 
duties. You need not disclose government-funded or political 
travel on this form, or travel that is unrelated to official 
duties. This form does not eliminate the need to report all 
privately-funded travel on the annual Financial Disclosure 
Statements.
    In accordance with House Rule 52, please complete this form 
and file it with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, 
1036 Longworth House Office Building, within 30 days after 
travel is completed. The Clerk shall make these forms available 
to the public as soon as possible after they are filed.

Description of the trip:

Dates of travel:
Destination(s):
Sponsor (who paid for the trip):
Purpose:

Provide a good faith estimate of the following:

Total transportation expenses:
Total lodging expenses:
Total meal expenses:
Total of all other expenses:

    I have determined that all of the expenses listed above were 
necessary and that the travel was in connection with my duties as a 
Member/Officer of the House of Representatives and would not create the 
appearance that I am using public office for private gain.
Name (please print or type):
Signature:
Date:

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                    employee travel disclosure form

    This form is for disclosing the receipt of travel expenses 
from private sources for meetings, speaking engagements, fact-
finding trips or similar events in connection with official 
duties. You need not disclose government-funded or political 
travel on this form, or travel that is unrelated to official 
duties. This form does not eliminate the need to report all 
privately-funded travel on the annual Financial Disclosure 
Statements of those persons required to file them.
    In accordance with House Rule 52, please complete this form 
and file it with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, 
1036 Longworth House Office Building, within 30 days after 
travel is completed. The Clerk shall make these forms available 
to the public as soon as possible after they are filed.

Description of the trip:

Dates of travel:
Destination(s):
Sponsor (who paid for the trip):
Purpose:

Provide a good faith estimate of the following:

Total transportation expenses:
Total lodging expenses:
Total meal expenses:
Total of all other expenses:
Name (please print or type):
Signature:
Date:

    I authorized this travel in advance. I have determined that all of 
the expenses listed above were necessary and that the travel was in 
connection with the employee's official duties and would not create the 
appearance that he/she is using public office for private gain.

Name of supervising Member/officer (please print or type):
Signature of supervising Member/officer
Date:

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                   report of charitable contribution

             in lieu of honorarium by a registered lobbyist

    A Member, Officer, or employee of the House of 
Representatives who asks a registered lobbyist to make a 
contribution to a charitable organization in lieu of paying an 
honorarium must complete this form and file it with the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives within 30 days after the 
request. The Clerk shall make this information public as soon 
as possible after it is filed.

Name of lobbyist making the contribution:
Address of lobbyist:
Date of contribution:
Amount of contribution:
Name of charitable organization:
Address of charitable organization:
Name of Member, officer or employee (please print or type):
Signature of Member officer or employee:
Date:
                               __________
                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                  Washington, DC, January 31, 1996.

           Memorandum for All Members, Officers and Employees

From: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Nancy L. 
        Johnson, Chairman, Jim McDermott, Ranking Democratic 
        Member.
Subject: Salary Levels At Which Outside Earned Income 
        Restrictions, Financial Disclosure Requirements, and 
        Post-employment Restrictions Apply for 1996.

                   OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME LIMITATIONS

    House Rule 47 and title 5 of the Ethics in Government Act 
of 1978 limit the amount of outside earned income a Member or 
senior employee may receive in a calendar year to 15 percent of 
the January 1 rate of pay in effect for level II of the 
Executive Schedule (see House Ethics Manual, p. 101). Executive 
level II remains $133,600; thus, the outside earned income 
limit for calendar year 1996 remains $20,040.
    The limit applies to all Members and to officers and 
employees paid at a rate of 120 percent of the minimum pay for 
GS-15 of the general schedule for at least 90 days in a 
calendar year. Since the GS-15 rate of basic pay is now 
$69,300, the earned income threshold is $83,160. Locality pay 
is not considered in making this determination.

                          FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

    All House officers and employees paid at a rate of 120 
percent of the minimum pay for GS-15 of the general schedule 
for more than 60 days at any time during the year must file a 
financial disclosure statement (see House Ethics Manual, p. 
161). As noted above, 120 percent of GS-15 is now $83,160.
    Please note that the requirement to file a financial 
disclosure statement covering calendar year 1995 was triggered 
by having earned at a rate of $81,530 for more than 60 days in 
1995. These 1995 financial disclosure statements are due May 
15, 1996, for individuals who continue to be House employees. 
An individual who earns enough to trigger the reporting 
requirement and leaves the House payroll must file a 
termination disclosure report, due 30 days after the date of 
termination.

                      POST-EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS

    The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 established statutory post-
employment restrictions on lobbying activities for all Members 
and officers of the House and certain employees (see House 
Ethics Manual, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 124-127 (1992)). An 
employee is covered if, for at least 60 days during the one-
year period preceding termination of employment, he or she was 
paid at a rate equal to or greater than 75 percent of the 
salary for Members at the time of termination.
    The pay for Members remains $133,600. Therefore, the post-
employment threshold for employees who leave their 
congressional jobs in 1996 is $100,200.
          * * * * * * *

                           Calendar Year 1996

Post-employment threshold.....................................  $100,200
Financial disclosure threshold................................    83,160
Outside earned income threshold...............................    83,160
Outside earned income cap.....................................    20,040
                              ----------                              

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                               Memorandum

To: All Members, Officers, and Employees of the House of 
        Representatives.
From: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Nancy L. 
        Johnson, Chairman, Jim McDermott, Ranking Democratic 
        member.
Subject: Widely Attended and other Events under the New Gift 
        Rule.
Date: March 18, 1996.
    The Committee has received many inquiries as to the types 
of events that Members and staff may attend under the new gift 
rule (House Rule 52). We hope the following guidance, which 
refines and supplements the advice previously distributed in 
our memorandum of December 7, 1995, will prove useful.

                         widely attended events

    House Rule 52 \1\ permits a Member, officer, or employee to 
accept an offer of free attendance at an event (such as a 
convention, conference, symposium, forum, panel discussion, 
luncheon or dinner, viewing, or reception,\2\ subject to three 
restrictions: (1) the event must be ``widely attended,'' (2) 
the invitation must come from the sponsor, and (3) the 
attendance of the Member or staff person must be related to his 
or her official duties. The Committee defines these elements as 
follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Clauses 1(c)(17) and 1(d).
    \2\ Receptions, at which ``food or refreshments of a nominal value 
offered other than as a part of a meal'' are served, are separately 
exempt from the gift limit and need not comply with the restrictions on 
``widely attended events.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, an event is deemed ``widely attended'' if (a) there 
is a reasonable expectation that at least twenty-five persons, 
other than Members, officers, or employees of the Congress, 
will attend the event; and (b) attendance at the event is open 
to members from throughout a given industry or profession, or 
those in attendance represent a range of persons interested in 
a given matter.
    Second, the term ``sponsor'' refers to the person, entity, 
or entities that are primarily responsible for organizing the 
event. An individual who simply contributes money to an event 
is not considered a sponsor.
    Third, the Member, officer, or employee must be 
participating in the event by speaking or by performing a 
ceremonial role; or he or she must determine that attendance at 
the event is appropriate to the performance of his or her 
official duties or representative function. Note that the 
responsibility for making this determination rests with the 
individual Member, officer, or employee who wishes to attend 
the event. Some relevant factors might include the opportunity 
to meet with constituents at the event, the desirability of 
representing one's constituency at an event where other elected 
or appointed officials will be present, or the opportunity to 
present or receive information at the event that is pertinent 
to one's district or to a legislative proposal. In making this 
determination, one should bear in mind the legislative history 
of the gift rule, which indicates that the event may not be 
merely for the personal pleasure or entertainment of the Member 
or employee.
    If the criteria described above are satisfied, the attendee 
may accept a waiver of all or part of a conference fee, local 
transportation, food, refreshments, entertainment, and 
instructional materials furnished to all attendees as an 
integral part of the event, as well as an unsolicited offer of 
free attendance for a companion. The Member or employee may not 
accept entertainment collateral to the event (e.g., theater 
tickets) or food or refreshments that are not provided in a 
group setting with all or substantially all other attendees.

          Example 1. The Widget Manufacturers of America is 
        holding its annual conference in Washington, D.C. 
        Hundreds of widget-makers from across the country 
        attend. The group invites Congressman A to be the 
        keynote speaker at dinner the first night. The 
        Congressman may give the speech and eat the dinner.
          Example 2. A trade association is holding a luncheon 
        in Washington, D.C. The association has invited all of 
        its members and expects about 30 to attend. The 
        association also invites several House staffers who 
        work on issues relevant to the association to the lunch 
        to discuss pending legislation. If the staffers 
        determine that it is appropriate to their official 
        duties to attend, they may attend and eat lunch.
          Example 3. The government relations department of Big 
        Business, Inc. invites Member B to its weekly staff 
        meeting and luncheon. Big expects that he entire staff 
        of its government relations department, consisting of 5 
        lobbyists, 10 researchers, and 15 support staff, will 
        attend. Big's luncheon does not constitute a widely 
        attended event because attendance at the event is not 
        open to members from throughout a given industry or 
        profession, nor do those present represent a range of 
        persons interested in a given matter. The Member may 
        not accept a free lunch from Big. He may attend and not 
        eat, or buy or bring his own lunch.

                         Source of Invitations

    The Committee construes Rule 52 as requiring that a Member 
or employee may only accept an invitation to an event from the 
sponsor of that event. This interpretation holds true for all 
events, regardless of whether they are widely attended, 
charitable, or political. As noted above, the term ``sponsor'' 
refers to the person, entity, or entities that are primarily 
responsible for organizing the event. An individual who simply 
contributes money to an event (e.g., by buying a ticket) is not 
considered a sponsor. Individual contributors may request that 
the sponsor invite particular Members or staff to sit with 
them, but ultimate control of the guest list and seating 
arrangements must remain with the sponsor.

          Example 4. The Good Samaritan Foundation, a 501(c)(3) 
        organization, organizes a $1,000-a-plate fundraising 
        dinner to support its charitable activities. Good 
        Samaritan may provide complimentary tickets to the 
        dinner to Mr. and Mrs. Representative.
          Example 5. Small Business, Inc. buys a table at the 
        Good Samaritan fundraising dinner. The Representatives 
        may not accept tickets from Small Business, Inc.
          Example 6. The Republican National Committee 
        organizes a fundraising dinner. The RNC may provide 
        complimentary tickets to Members and staff.
          Example 7. The DCCC organizes a fundraising dinner. A 
        political action committee buys a table. Member C may 
        not accept a ticket from the PAC. C may accept a ticket 
        from the DCCC, and, if it chooses to do so, the DCCC 
        may seat C at the PAC's table.

                 Events with Constituent Organizations

    The new gift rule was not intended to interfere with 
Members carrying out their conventional representational 
duties. The Committee recognizes that meetings or events with 
constituent organizations may sometimes be attended by only a 
few constituents, particularly where the organization is from a 
state with a small or diffuse population.
    Therefore, the Committee grants a general waiver for 
Members, officers, and employees to accept free attendance 
(including meals) at meetings or events with constituent 
organizations, regardless of the number of constituents in 
attendance or the location of the event, provided that the 
meeting or event is:
          (1) regularly scheduled (such as an annual visit to 
        Washington, DC);
          (2) related to the official duties or representative 
        functions of the Member, officer, or employee attending 
        the event; and
          (3) open to members of the constituent organization 
        (as opposed to only officers or board members).

Examples of constituent organizations covered by this waiver 
include, but are not limited to, the Chamber of Commerce, 
Rotary Club, civic associations, senior citizens' 
organizations, veterans' groups, and professional associations 
(e.g., associations of hospital administration, realtors, car 
dealers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, farmers, bankers, or 
teachers).

          Example 8. The Chamber of Commerce in Representative 
        D's district invites her to the monthly breakfast 
        meeting of its members. If D determines that it is 
        related to her official duties or representative 
        functions, she may attend and eat breakfast and/or send 
        someone from her staff.
          Example 9. A Rotary Club in Member E's district holds 
        periodic luncheon meetings of its membership and 
        invites him to one. If the Member determines that it is 
        related to his official duties or representative 
        functions, he may attend and eat lunch.
          Example 10. A veterans' group in Representative F's 
        district invites her to a Veterans' Day dinner, with 
        its members, at the local VFW hall. If F determines 
        that it is related to her official duties or 
        representative functions, she may attend and eat 
        dinner.
          Example 11. The Homestate Realtors' Association holds 
        its annual Washington ``fly-in.'' All members of the 
        association are invited; usually about 20 realtors 
        come. One of the events on their agenda is a dinner 
        they propose to host for their congressional 
        delegation. If the Members of the delegation determine 
        that it is related to their official duties or 
        representative functions, they may attend and eat 
        dinner.
          Example 12. A realtor comes to Washington for the 
        Realtors' Association ``fly-in.'' He is the only 
        realtor from Congressman G's district who makes the 
        trip and he would like to have lunch with his 
        representative. Since their lunch is not an association 
        event, the Congressman must pay for his own lunch.
          Example 13. Two members of the Homestate Realtors' 
        Association fly to Washington on their own and invite 
        Congresswoman H to lunch. Since the trip is not an 
        association event, H must pay for her own lunch.

                           Educational Events

    The Committee is aware that some worthwhile events may be 
designed for small groups, to facilitate discussions. While 
these events may not be ``widely attended,'' in that fewer than 
25 non-congressional attendees may be expected, we do not 
believe the gift rule should prevent Members or employees from 
participating in educational activities. Therefore, the 
Committee grants a general waiver permitting Members and 
employees to accept invitations to events (including meals 
offered as part of these events) that, while they do not meet 
the criteria of ``widely attended events,'' are:
          (1) educational (e.g., lectures, seminars, and 
        discussions), and
          (2) sponsored by universities, foundations, ``think 
        tanks,'' or similar non-profit, non-advocacy 
        organizations.
    In keeping with the gift rule's intent, this waiver does 
not extend to meals in connection with presentations sponsored 
by lobbyists, lobbying firms, or advocacy groups, or to meals 
in connection with legislative briefings or strategy sessions.

          Example 14. The Plato Institute, a non-partisian, 
        non-profit ``think tank,'' hosts a luncheon series 
        featuring distinguished speakers from academia 
        discussing foreign policy topics. They invite 
        approximately 15 individuals to each luncheon, 
        including a number of congressional staff persons. The 
        staff may attend and eat lunch.
          Example 15. The Widget Manufacturers' Association 
        establishes a non-profit educational foundation. The 
        foundation sponsors a monthly Widget Wonks' Forum, at 
        which experts from the widget field explain aspects of 
        their industry and the ramifications of various 
        legislative proposals for that industry. Approximately 
        a dozen congressional staff persons are invited to each 
        of these presentations, which occur over lunch. If 
        staff persons wish to attend, they must bring or buy 
        their own lunch, or not eat.

                          Incidental Expenses

    Sometimes, in the course of performing one's legislative or 
representative duties at government expense, a Member or 
employee will be offered a de minimis amount of food or 
transportation, as a courtesy. One might be offered a meal in 
the company cafeteria while touring a facility in one's 
district or a ride from the airport to a site being visited, 
while in an unfamiliar town on committee business. We do not 
believe the spirit of the gift rule is violated by accepting 
such occasional, incidental courtesies. Therefore, the 
Committee grants a general waiver of the gift rule enabling a 
Member, officer, or employee to accept the following expenses 
incidental to legitimate official activity:
          (1) food or refreshments, including a meal, offered 
        by the management of a site being visited, (a) on that 
        business's premises, and (b) in a group setting with 
        employees of the organization;
          (2) local transportation, outside of the District of 
        Columbia, provided by the management of a site being 
        visited in the course of official duties, between an 
        airport or other terminus and the site.
Similarly, acceptance of these expenses will not be deemed a 
violation of House Rule 45.
    This waiver does not extend to car service made available 
from the same source on a regular basis, transportation in the 
District of Columbia, or catered meals at the Washington, D.C. 
offices of lobbying or law firms.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                     Washington, DC, June 10, 1996.

           Memorandum to All Members, Officers, and Employees

From: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Nancy L. 
        Johnson, Chairman, Jim McDermott, Ranking Democratic 
        Member.
Subject: Legal Expense Fund Regulations.
    The new gift rule exempts ``a contribution or other payment 
to a legal expense fund established for the benefit of a 
Member, officer, or employee that is otherwise lawfully made in 
accordance with the restrictions and disclosure requirements of 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,'' as long as 
the contribution is not from a registered lobbyist or an agent 
of a foreign principal (House Rule 52, clause 1(c)(5)). In 
light of this new rule, and pursuant to its authority 
thereunder, the Committee hereby issues regulations explaining 
its ``restrictions and disclosure requirements'' for legal 
expense funds. The regulations set forth below supersede the 
Committee's prior policies under the old gift rule \1\ and take 
effect as of July 1, 1996. The prior policies remain in effect 
until that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See House Ethics Manual, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 49-50 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     legal expense fund regulations

    1. A Member, officer, or employee who wishes to solicit 
and/or receive donations, in cash or in kind, to pay legal 
expenses shall obtain the prior written permission of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Permission is not required to solicit and/or receive a donation 
in any amount from a relative or a donation of up to $250 from a 
personal friend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. The Committee shall grant permission to establish a 
Legal Expense Fund only where the legal expenses arise in 
connection with: the individual's candidacy for or election to 
federal office; the individual's official duties or position in 
Congress (including legal expenses incurred in connection with 
an amicus brief filed in a Member's official capacity, a civil 
action by a Member challenging the validity of a law or federal 
regulation, or a matter before the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct); a criminal prosecution; or a civil matter 
bearing on the individual's reputation or fitness for office.
    3. The Committee shall not grant permission to establish a 
Legal Expense Fund where the legal expenses arise in connection 
with a matter that is primarily personal in nature (e.g., a 
matrimonial action).
    4. A Member, officer, or employee may accept pro bono legal 
assistance without limit to file an amicus brief in his or her 
capacity as a Member of Congress or to bring a civil action 
challenging the validity of any federal law or regulation. Pro 
bono legal assistance for other purposes shall be deemed a 
contribution subject to the restrictions of these regulations.
    5. A Legal Expense Fund shall be set up as a trust, 
administered by an independent trustee, who shall oversee fund 
raising.
    6. The trustee shall not have any family, business, or 
employment relationship with the trust's beneficiary.
    7. Trust funds shall be used only for legal expenses (and 
expenses incurred in soliciting for and administering the 
trust), except that any excess funds shall be returned to 
contributors. Under no circumstances may the beneficiary of a 
Legal Expense Fund convert the funds to any other purpose.
    8. A Legal Expense Fund shall not accept more than $5,000 
in a calendar year from any individual or organization.
    9. A Legal Expense Fund shall not accept any contribution 
from a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal.
    10. Other than as specifically barred by law or regulation, 
a Legal Expense Fund may accept contributions from any 
individual or organization, including a corporation, labor 
union, or political action committee (PAC).
    11. No contribution shall be solicited for or accepted by a 
Legal Expense Fund prior to the Committee's written approval of 
the completed trust document (including the name of the 
trustee).
    12. Within one week of the Committee's approval of the 
trust document, the beneficiary shall file a copy of the trust 
document with the Legislative Resource Center (1036 Longworth 
House Office Building) for public disclosure.
    13. The beneficiary of a Legal Expense Fund shall report to 
the Committee on a quarterly basis, with copy filed for public 
disclosure at the Legislative Resource Center:
          (a) any donation to the Fund from a corporation or 
        labor union;
          (b) any contribution (or group of contributions) 
        exceeding $250 in a calendar year from any other single 
        source; and
          (c) any expenditure from the Fund exceeding $250 in a 
        calendar year.
    Beginning October 30, 1996, these reports shall be due as 
follows:

                                                                        
            Reporting period                         Due date           
                                                                        
January 1-March 31......................  April 30.                     
April 1-June 30.........................  July 30.                      
July 1-September 30.....................  October 30.                   
October 1-December 31...................  January 30.                   
                                                                        

    14. Any Member or employee who established a Legal Expense 
Fund prior to July 1, 1996 shall make any necessary 
modifications to the trust document to bring it into compliance 
with these regulations and shall disclose the trust document 
with his or her first quarterly report of the 105th Congress on 
January 30, 1997. Reports of receipts and expenditures shall be 
due beginning October 30, 1996, as stated in paragraph 13, 
above.

                use of campaign funds for legal expenses

    This Committee has stated (in the 1992 Ethics Manual) that 
Members may use campaign funds to defend legal actions arising 
out of their campaign, election, or the performance of their 
official duties. More recently, however, the Federal Election 
Commission (FEC) issued regulations defining impermissible 
personal uses of campaign funds, including using campaign funds 
for certain legal expenses. Any Member contemplating the use of 
campaign funds for the direct payment of legal expenses or for 
contribution to a legal expense fund should first contact the 
FEC.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                      Washington, DC, July 8, 1996.

                               Memorandum

To: All Members, Officers, and Employees of the House of 
        Representatives.
From: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Nancy L. 
        Johnson, Chairman, Jim McDermott, Ranking Democratic 
        Member.
Subject: Gift Rule Issues.
    This memorandum addresses three matters under the new gift 
rule (House Rule 52), which went into effect at the start of 
this year: (1) Member and staff participation in charity golf 
tournaments, (2) acceptance of an ``honorary membership'' in an 
organization by a Member or employee, and (3) the form of 
requests for advice made to the Committee. The Committee's 
guidance on these matters is as follows.

                        charity golf tournaments

    Attendance at Charity Tournaments. Subject to several 
restrictions which are addressed below, the gift rule allows 
Members and staff to accept a sponsor's offer of free 
attendance at a charity event, including a charity golf 
tournament.\1\ According to the House Rules Committee report on 
the gift rule, the provision on attendance at charity events 
was included in the rule in order to allow Members and staff 
``to lend their names to legitimate charitable enterprises and 
otherwise promote charitable goals.'' \2\ The restrictions 
encompassed in this provision are four-fold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Clause 1(d)(3) of House Rule 52.
    \2\ H.R. Rep. No. 337, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., at p. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, the tournament must be a bona fide charity event: 
that is, an event the primary purpose of which is to raise 
funds for an organization qualified under section 170(c) of the 
Tax Code to receive tax deductible contributions.
    Second, Members and staff may accept an invitation only 
from the tournament's sponsor. As explained in the Committee's 
gift rule advisory memorandum of March 18, 1996, the 
``sponsor'' of an event is the person or persons primarily 
responsible for organizing the event. A person who simply 
contributes money or buys tickets to an event is not considered 
a sponsor of that event. Accordingly, the rule does not allow 
Members and staff to accept an invitation from a person who has 
simply paid entry fees for a tournament.
    Third, under the terms of the rule, the sponsor's 
invitation to attend the tournament must be unsolicited.
    Finally, the rule specifically prohibits Members and staff 
from accepting reimbursement for transportation or lodging in 
connection with their attendance at any charity event. This 
prohibition is a major change from the rules previously in 
effect. Local transportation may be accepted from the sponsor, 
however.
    Refreshments and Gift Items. Often the sponsors of charity 
tournament offer food and beverages, as well as certain gift 
items, to the tournament participants.
    Members and staff who may attend a tournament under the 
standards set forth above may also, while at the event, accept 
food or refreshments which the sponsor offers to all attendees 
in a group setting, and as an integral part of the event.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Clause 1(d)(4) of House Rule 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, under clause 1(c)(23) of the rule, 
participating Members and staff may accept from the sponsor 
items of ``nominal value'' which the sponsor offers to all 
participants. Neither the rule itself nor any of the guidance 
issued by the Committee defines ``nominal value'' in terms of a 
precise dollar amount. Instead, whether any particular item 
offered to a Member or employee is acceptable as an item of 
``nominal value'' is to be reasonably determined by that 
individual. In our view, items such as a set of golf balls or 
tees, or a visor, may properly be considered items of nominal 
value, whereas items such as a golf bag or a pair of golf shoes 
cannot reasonably be considered items of nominal value.
    Since they are limited to accepting gift items of nominal 
value, House Members and staff may not be able to accept all 
items which are provided to all other tournament participants. 
This is not an inappropriate result, in view of the fact that 
in the circumstances here addressed, the other participants 
paid the entrance fee for the tournament, but the participating 
Members and employees did not. However, where a Member or 
employee does pay the full entrance fee for a charity 
tournament, he or she may accept all of the gift items which 
are offered to all of the other participants.
    House Members and employees may also accept so-called 
``skill'' prizes offered by the tournament sponsor, such as for 
the lowest score in the tournament, or for a hole-in-one. Any 
such prize will have to be disclosed as earned income on the 
annual Financial Disclosure Statement of any individual who is 
legally obliged to file one (Members, officers and certain 
staff).
    Finally, at times a tournament sponsor offers ``door 
prizes'' to tournament participants through a drawing, and/or 
holds a raffle at the tournament to which tickets must be 
purchased separately. Members and employees who win a prize in 
such a drawing or raffle may keep the prize, provided that most 
of the entries in the contest were from individuals who are not 
Members, officers or employees of the Congress. If the prize is 
worth more than $250, it will have to be disclosed as a gift on 
the Financial Disclosure Statement of any individual who is 
required to file one.

                          honorary memberships

    Prior to the adoption of House Rule 52, the Committee 
permitted a Member or employee to accept an honorary membership 
in an organization--including, for example, a country club--in 
limited circumstances. A gift of membership was to be valued 
according to the extent to which the individual made use of the 
benefits of membership.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See House Ethics Manual, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 57 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of the new restrictions contained in House Rule 52 
(and the difficulties of valuation under the ``use'' standard 
noted above), the Committee has adopted a new policy regarding 
the acceptance of honorary memberships. As of the date of this 
Memorandum, Members and employees may not accept an honorary 
membership in any organization if acceptance entails the waiver 
of initiation fees and/or periodic dues.

                            committee advice

    The Committee staff is available to provide informal advice 
over the telephone regarding the gift rule, as well as other 
ethics matters, and the Committee will provide a formal written 
opinion in response to a proper written inquiry.
    It should be noted, however, that only the Committee's 
formal written opinions are binding on the Committee: that is, 
under Committee Rule 3(l), the Committee ``may take no adverse 
action in regard to any conduct that has been undertaken in 
reliance on a written opinion if the conduct conforms to the 
specific facts addressed in the opinion.''
    Accordingly, especially with regard to questions that are 
unusual or complex, the Committee encourages a written inquiry. 
Under Committee Rule 3(k), the Committee is required to keep 
confidential any request for advice, as well as any response 
thereto.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                     Washington, DC, July 29, 1996.
To: All Members, Officers, and Employees of the House of 
        Representatives and Staff.
From: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Nancy L. 
        Johnson, Chairman, Jim McDermott, Ranking Democratic 
        Member.
Subject: Guidelines For National Party Conventions.

                               Memorandum

    The Committee continues to receive numerous inquiries 
regarding the effect of the new House gift rule (Rule 52) on 
Members and staff who attend the Republican and Democratic 
national party conventions in San Diego and Chicago in August. 
Attached is a copy of the convention guidelines the Committee 
previously circulated in March.
                          House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                    Washington, DC, March 29, 1996.
    Dear Colleague: The Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct has received many inquiries regarding the effect of the 
new House gift rule (Rule 52) on Members and staff who attend 
the national party conventions this summer in San Diego and 
Chicago. There are five rules to remember in this context.
    1. A House Member or employee may accept anything from: the 
city of San Diego or Chicago, any unit of state or local 
government, or the official local Host Committee in San Diego 
or Chicago. This derives from Rule 52's exception for anything 
provided by a unit of government.
    2. A House Member or employee may accept meals, 
refreshments, lodging, transportation, tickets to sporting, 
theatrical, and other entertainment events, and items of 
nominal value, as long as they are provided by one of the 
following: the Republican or Democratic National Committee, the 
Republican or Democratic convention committee, a state or local 
party organization, or a campaign committee. This derives from 
Rule 52's exception for various items provided by a political 
organization in connection with a campaign event.
    3. Members and staff may accept invitations to any 
reception (under Rule 52's exception for food of nominal value 
offered other than as a part of a meal).
    4. A Member or employee may accept a meal, entertainment 
that is integral to the event, local transportation, and an 
item of nominal value at an event sponsored by an individual, 
corporation, union, or other group if at least 25 non-
congressional attendees are expected and the Member or staff 
person is invited by the organizer of the event. This comes 
from Rule 52's exception for ``widely attended events.'' The 
Committee believes that attendance at these large gatherings at 
the conventions is appropriate to the performance of official 
duties.
    5. Outside of the context of widely attended or fundraising 
events, Members and staff may not accept meals, tickets to 
sporting or entertainment events, greens fees, or gifts of more 
than nominal value from individual lobbyists or anyone not 
listed in paragraphs 1 and 2, above (except a relative or a 
personal friend).
    If you have any questions regarding these issues or other 
matters relating to the gift rule, please contact the 
Committee's Office of Advice of Education at extension 5-3787.
            Sincerely,
                                   Nancy L. Johnson,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Jim McDermott,
                                           Ranking Democratic Member.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                 Washington, DC, December 12, 1996.
    Dear Colleague: This letter, on behalf of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, summarizes the circumstances in 
which members and employees may, under the gift rule (House 
Rule 52), accept an offer of free attendance at events held in 
connection with the Presidential Inauguration.
    Members and staff may attend any reception, under the 
rule's provision allowing acceptance of food or refreshments of 
a nominal value offered other than as a part of a meal. Members 
and staff may also accept an invitation offered by a state or 
local government, under the rule's provision allowing 
acceptance of things paid for by governmental units.
    In addition, the rule allows acceptance of an invitation 
from any political or campaign committee for an event which 
that committee is sponsoring. Members and staff may also accept 
a ticket to any event from a relative, or one that is offered 
on the basis of personal friendship. However, a ticket valued 
at more than $250 can be accepted on the basis of personal 
friendship only with this Committee's written approval.
    Otherwise, Members and staff may accept an offer of free 
attendance at an event--including an inaugural ball, dinner or 
similar event--only if the rule's requirements regarding 
``widely attended'' events are satisfied. Those requirements 
are that (1) at least 25 non-congressional attendees are 
expected at the event, (2) the offer is made by the organizer 
of the event (as opposed to one who has merely purchased 
tickets for the event), and (3) attendance at that event is 
appropriate to the performance of the official duties or 
representative function of the Member or staffer.
    As to requirement (2) noted above, the sponsor of the 
official inaugural balls and other official events in the 
Presidential Inaugural Committee. Thus the rule prohibits the 
acceptance of an offer of free attendance at those events from 
anyone other than the Inaugural Committee (or a relative or 
personal friend).
    If you have any questions (including with regard to 
reporting of gifts on one's Financial Disclosure Statement), 
please contact the Committee's Office of Advice and Education 
at extension 5-3787.
            Sincerely,
                                   Nancy L. Johnson,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Jim McDermott,
                                           Ranking Democratic Member.
                               APPENDIX B

  Statement of the Investigative Subcommittee on Behalf of the House 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, December 21, 1996

    The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is 
today releasing a Statement of Alleged Violation issued in the 
matter of Representative Newt Gingrich. In addition, the 
Committee is also releasing Mr. Gingrich's answer to the 
Statement of Alleged Violation, in which he admits to the 
violation of House Rules contained in the Statement of Alleged 
Violation.
    In light of Mr. Gingrich's answer, the Investigative 
Subcommittee is of the view that the Rules of the Committee 
will not require the holding of an adjudicatory hearing to 
determine whether the violation has been proven. Accordingly, 
with the concurrence of the Committee, the next proceeding will 
be a hearing before the full Committee to determine a 
recommendation to the House for an appropriate resolution. 
Since this remains a pending matter, there will be no further 
public comment.

house of representatives committee on standards of official conduct in 
               the matter of representative newt gingrich

         respondent's answer to statement of alleged violation

    I, Newt Gingrich, admit to the Statement of Alleged 
Violation dated December 21, 1996.
                                   Representative Newt Gingrich,
                                           Respondent.
                                   J. Randolph Evans, Esq.,
                                           Attorney for Representative 
                                               Newt Gingrich.

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 
true and correct. Executed on December 21, 1996.

                                   Representative Newt Gingrich.

house of representatives committee on standards of official conduct in 
     the matter of representative newt gingrich, december 21, 1996

                     statement of alleged violation

    1. At all times relevant to this Statement of Alleged 
Violation, Newt Gingrich was a Member of the United States 
House of Representatives representing the Sixth District of 
Georgia.
    2. At all times relevant to this Statement of Alleged 
Violation, GOPAC was a political action committee within the 
meaning of section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code dedicated 
to; among other things, achieving Republican control of the 
United States House of Representatives.
    3. GOPAC's methods for accomplishing the goal described in 
paragraph 2 included the development of a political message to 
appeal to votes and the dissemination of that message as widely 
as possible. As stated in a draft document dated November 1, 
1989, entitled ``GOPAC IN THE 1990s:''

          [GOPAC's] role is to both create and disseminate the 
        doctrine of a majority Republican party.
          The creation of a new doctrine is essentially a 
        research function, involving the development of new 
        ideas at the strategic, operational and tactical level. 
        Strategic doctrine, in this context, consists of the 
        language, policies and programs that will define the 
        caring, humanitarian, reform Republican agenda of the 
        1990s. Operational doctrine consists of the political 
        message and image which will attract voters and elect 
        state and local candidates in support of this new 
        agenda. And, tactical doctrine consists of the specific 
        political techniques Republicans will use to win 
        elections and enact governing conservative policies. 
        (emphasis in the original).

    The document then states:

          As important as the creation of the new doctrine is 
        its dissemination. During the 1980s GOPAC and Newt 
        Gingrich have led the way in applying new technology, 
        from C-SPAN to video tapes, to disseminate information 
        to Republican candidates and political activists.
          * * * * *
          But the Mission Statement demands that we do much 
        more. To create the level of change needed to become a 
        majority, the new Republican doctrine must be 
        communicated to a broader audience, with greater 
        frequency, in a more usable form. GOPAC needs a bigger 
        ``microphone.'' (emphasis in the original).

    4. From in or about September 1986 through in or about May 
1995, Mr. Gingrich was General Chairman of GOPAC. In that 
capacity he determined the messages GOPAC used to accomplish 
its goals.
    5. In a document entitled ``Key Factors in a House GOP 
Majority,'' Mr. Gingrich wrote the following:

          1. The fact that 50% of all potential voters are 
        currently outside politics (non-voters) creates the 
        possibility that a new appeal might alter the current 
        balance of political power by bringing in a vast number 
        of new voters.
          * * * * *
          3. It is possible to articulate a vision of ``an 
        America that can be'' which is appealing to most 
        Americans, reflects the broad values of a governing 
        conservation (basic American values, entrepreneurial 
        Free Enterprise and Technological progress), and is 
        very difficult for the Democrats to co-opt because of 
        their ideology and their interest groups.
          4. It is more powerful and more effective to develop 
        a reform movement parallel to the official Republican 
        Party because:
                          a. the news media will find it more 
                        interesting and cover it more often and 
                        more favorably;
                          b. the non-voters who are non-
                        political or anti-political will accept 
                        a movement more rapidly than they will 
                        accept an established party;
          * * * * *
          6. The objective measurable goal is the maximum 
        growth of news coverage of our vision and ideas, the 
        maximum recruitment of new candidates, voters and 
        resources, and the maximum electoral success in winning 
        seats from the most local office to the White House and 
        then using those victories to implement the values of a 
        governing conservatism and to create the best America 
        that can be.

    6. In early 1990 GOPAC developed and carried out a project 
called American Opportunities Workshop (``AOW''). It consisted 
of producing and broadcasting a television program centered on 
a citizens' movement to reform government. The movement was 
based on three tenants:

          1. Basic American Values;
          2. Entrepreneurial Free Enterprise; and
          3. Technological Progress.

    The project also involved the recruitment of activists to 
set up local workshops around the broadcast in order to recruit 
people to the movement. The project was Mr. Gingrich's idea and 
he had a high level of involvement in it.
    7. While AOW was described as being non-partisan, mailings 
sent by GOPAC to its supporters described AOW as having 
partisan, political goals. One letter sent over Mr. Gingrich's 
name stated the following:

          [W]e'll be reaching voters with our message, and 
        helping drive down to the state and local level our 
        politics of realignment.
          Through the use of satellite hook-ups, not only can 
        we reach new groups of voters not traditionally 
        associated with our Party, but we'll be able to give 
        them our message straight, without it being filtered 
        and misinterpreted by liberal elements in the media.

    The letter ended with the following:

          I truly believe that our Party and our President 
        stand on the verge of a tremendous success this year, 
        and that this workshop can be a great election year 
        boost to us.

    8. AOW consumed a large portion of GOPAC's financial 
resources during 1990. After one program the funding and 
operation of the project was transferred, with Mr. Gingrich's 
knowledge and approval, to the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity 
Foundation (``ALOF''), a corporation with a tax-exempt status 
under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. ALOF 
operated out of GOPAC's offices. Its officers consisted of 
Howard Callaway, the Chairman of GOPAC, and Kay Riddle, 
Executive Director of GOPAC. In addition, the people who were 
listed as working for ALOF were GOPAC employees or consultants. 
ALOF raised and expended tax-deductible charitable 
contributions to carry out the project.
    9. At ALOF the project was called American Citizens' 
Television (``ACTV'') and had the same goals as AOW. It was 
also based on the three tenants of Basic American Values, 
Entrepreneurial Free Enterprise, and Technological Progress and 
involved the recruiting of activists to set up local workshops 
around the broadcast to recruit people to the citizens' 
movement. In a letter sent by GOPAC over Mr. Gingrich's name, 
ACTV was described as follows:

          I am excited about progress of the ``American 
        Citizen's Television'' project, which will carry the 
        torch of citizen activism begun by our American 
        Opportunities Workshop on May 19th. We mobilized 
        thousands of people across the nation at the grass 
        roots level who as a result of AOW, are now dedicated 
        GOPAC activists. We are making great strides in 
        continuing to recruit activists all across America to 
        become involved with the Republican party. Our efforts 
        are literally snowballing into the activist movement we 
        need to win in '92.

    10. ACTV broadcast three programs in 1990 and Mr. Gingrich 
continued his involvement in the project. The first two were 
produced by ALOF. They aired on July 21, 1990, and September 
29, 1990, and were hosted by Mr. Gingrich. The last program was 
produced by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, 
a 501(c)(4) organization, and did not include Mr. Gingrich. 
ALOF expended approximately $260,000 in regard to these 
programs.
    11. Under the Internal Revenue Code, an organization which 
is exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) must be 
operated exclusively for exempt purposes. The presence of a 
single non-exempt purpose, if more than insubstantial in 
nature, will destroy the exemption regardless of the number or 
importance of truly exempt purposes. Conferring a benefit on 
private interests is a non-exempt purpose. Under the Internal 
Revenue Code, an organization which is exempt from taxation 
under section 501(c)(3) is also prohibited from providing any 
support to a political action committee. These prohibitions 
reflect Congressional concerns that tax-payer funds not be used 
to subsidize political activity.
    12. Mr. Gingrich did not seek specific legal advice 
concerning the application of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
Revenue Code in regard to the facts described in paragraphs 2 
through 10 and did not take affirmative steps to ensure that 
such legal advice was obtained by others from an appropriate 
source.
    13. During the Preliminary Inquiry the Investigative 
Subcommittee (``Subcommittee'') consulted with an expert in the 
law of tax-exempt organizations. Mr. Gingrich's activities on 
behalf of ALOF and the activities of others on behalf of ALOF 
with Mr. Gingrich's knowledge and approval were reviewed by the 
expert. The expert concluded that those activities violated 
ALOF's status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
Code in that, among other things, those activities:
          a. were intended to confer more than insubstantial 
        benefits on GOPAC and Republican entities and 
        candidates; and
          b. provided support to GOPAC.
    14. The Subcommittee also heard from tax counsel retained 
by Mr. Gingrich for the purposes of this Preliminary Inquiry. 
According to Mr. Gingrich's tax counsel, this type of activity 
would not violate ALOF's status under section 501(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code.
    15. Both the Subcommittee's expert and Mr. Gingrich's tax 
counsel agree that had they been consulted about this type of 
activity prior to its taking place, they would have advised 
that it not be conducted under the auspices of an organization 
exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
Revenue Code.
    16. If the legal advice described in paragraph 15 had been 
sought and followed, most, if not all, of the tax-deductible 
charitable contributions would not have been used for the 
activities described in paragraphs 2 through 10. As a result, 
the public controversy involving the legality of a Member's 
involvement with an organization exempt from taxation under 
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code concerning 
activities described in paragraphs 2 through 10 would not have 
occurred.
    17. In December 1992, Mr. Gingrich began to develop a 
movement which became known as Renewing American Civilization. 
The goal of this movement was the replacement of the ``welfare 
state'' with an ``opportunity society.''
    18. A primary means of achieving this goal was the 
development of the movement's message and the dissemination of 
that message as widely as possible. The message was also known 
by the name of Renewing American Civilization. The heart of 
that message was that the welfare state had failed, that it 
could not be repaired but had to be replaced, and that it had 
to be replaced with an opportunity society that was based on 
what was called the ``five pillars of American Civilization.'' 
These were: (1) personal strength; (2) entrepreneurial free 
enterprise; (3) the spirit of invention; (4) quality as defined 
by Edwards Deming; and (5) the lessons of American history. The 
message also concentrated on three substantive areas. These 
were: (1) jobs and economic growth; (2) health; and (3) saving 
the inner city.
    19. It was intended that a Republican majority would be 
part of the movement.
    20. One aspect of the movement was to ``professionalize'' 
the House Republicans. One method for doing this was to use the 
movement's message to attract voters, resources, and 
candidates.
    21. GOPAC was one of the institutions that was instrumental 
in developing and disseminating the message of the movement. In 
early 1993 Mr. Gingrich, as GOPAC's General Chairman, was 
instrumental in determining that virtually the entire political 
program for GOPAC in 1993 and 1994 would be centered on 
developing, disseminating, and using the message of Renewing 
American Civilization.
    22. In late 1992 and through 1993, GOPAC's limited 
financial resources were not sufficient to enable it to carry 
out all of the political programs at its usual level.
    23. In or about late 1992 or early 1993, Mr. Gingrich 
decided to teach a course. It was also entitled Renewing 
American Civilization. The course lasted ten weeks and devoted 
a separate session to each of the ``five pillars'' and each of 
the three substantive areas.
    24. GOPAC had a number of roles in regard to the course. 
They included:
          a. Starting in or about February 1993, employees and 
        consultants for GOPAC were involved in developing the 
        course. As of June 1, 1993, Jeffrey Eisenach, GOPAC's 
        Executive Director, and two of his assistants, resigned 
        from their positions at GOPAC to manage the operations 
        of the course. They did, however, maintain a consulting 
        contract under which GOPAC paid one-half of their 
        salaries through September 30, 1993.
          b. In a letter sent to all GOPAC Charter Members over 
        Mr. Gingrich's name in June 1993, another aspect of 
        GOPAC's involvement in the course was described as 
        follows:

          During our meeting in January, a number of Charter 
        Members were kind enough to take part in a planning 
        session on ``Renewing American Civilization.'' That 
        session not only affected the substance of what the 
        message was to be, but also how best the new message of 
        positive solutions could be disseminated to this 
        nation's decision makers--elected officials, civic and 
        business leaders, the media and individual voters. In 
        addition to my present avenues of communications I 
        decided to add an avenue close to my heart, that being 
        teaching. I have agreed with Kennesaw State College, a 
        12,000 student graduate and undergraduate college 
        located in my district, to teach ``Renewing American 
        Civilization'' as a for-credit class four times during 
        the next four years.

          c. GOPAC's Charter Member Meeting in April 1993 was 
        entitled ``Renewing American Civilization.'' At that 
        meeting, Charter Members were asked to help develop the 
        ideas contained in the course. A memorandum to the 
        Charter Member attendees described that process as 
        follows:

          As you are probably aware, Newt will be teaching a 
        for-credit class at Kennesaw State College this Fall on 
        the topic of ``Renewing American Civilization.'' The 
        class is organized around his ``Five Pillars of 
        American Civilization.''. . . 
          During the afternoon of Sunday, April 25, we are 
        asking our Charter Members to participate in a set of 
        breakout sessions, with one session focussing on each 
        of the five ``pillars.'' In particular, we will ask you 
        to critique a draft ``visions statement'' explaining 
        why we believe each pillar is essential to renewing 
        American Civilization. If past experience is any guide, 
        we expect these sessions to dramatically improve both 
        our understanding of the subject and our ability to 
        communicate it.

          d. GOPAC employees took part in fundraising for the 
        course.
          e. GOPAC was involved in the promotion of the course. 
        In one such instance, GOPAC prepared and sent a letter 
        concerning the course over Mr. Gingrich's name to 
        College Republicans. The letter included the following:

          [C]onservatives today face a challenge larger than 
        stopping President Clinton. We must ask ourselves what 
        the future would be like if we were allowed to define 
        it, and learn to explain that future to the American 
        people in a way that captures first their imagination 
        and then their votes.
          In that context, I am going to devote much of the 
        next four years, starting this Fall, to teaching a 
        course entitled ``Renewing American Civilization.'' In 
        am writing to you today to ask you to enroll for the 
        class, and to organize a seminar so that your friends 
        can enroll as well.
          * * * * *
          Let me be clear: This is not about politics as such. 
        But I believe the ground we will cover is essential for 
        anyone who hopes to be involved in politics over the 
        next several decades to understand. American 
        cvilization is, after all, the cultural glue that holds 
        us all together. Unless we can understand it, renew it 
        and extend it into the next century, we will never 
        succeed in replacing the Welfare State with an 
        Opportunity Society.
          * * * * *
          I have devoted my life to teaching and acting out a 
        set of principles. As a fellow Republican, I know you 
        share those values. This class will help us all 
        remember what we're about and why it is so essential 
        that we prevail. Please join me this Fall for 
        ``Renewing American Civilization.''

          f. In letters sent by GOPAC, a partisan, political 
        role for the course was described.
          Two letters sent over Mr. Gingrich's name included 
        the following statements:

          i. As we discussed, it is time to lay down a 
        blueprint--which is why in part I am teaching the 
        course on Renewing American Civilization. Hopefully, it 
        will provide the structure to build an offense so that 
        Republicans can break through dramatically in 1996. We 
        have a good chance to make significant gains in 1994, 
        but only if we can reach the point where we are united 
        behind a positive message, as well as a critique of the 
        Clinton program.
          ii. I am encouraged by your understanding that the 
        welfare state cannot merely be repaired, but must be 
        replaced and have made a goal of activating at least 
        200,000 citizen activists nationwide through my course, 
        Renewing American Civilization. We hope to educate 
        people with the fact that we are entering the 
        information society. In order to make sense of this 
        society, we must rebuild an opportunistic country. In 
        essence, if we can reach Americans through my course, 
        independent expenditures, GOPAC and other strategies, 
        we just might unseat the Democratic majority in the 
        House in 1994 and make government accountable again.

          Another letter sent over GOPAC's Finance Director's 
        name included the following statement:

          iii. As the new finance director, I want to introduce 
        myself and to assure you of my commitment and 
        enthusiasm to the recruitment and training of 
        grassroots Republican candidates. In addition, with the 
        course Newt will be teaching in the fall--Renewing 
        American Civilization--I see a very real opportunity to 
        educate the American voting population to Republican 
        ideals, increasing our opportunity to win local, state 
        and Congressional seats.

    25. The course was taught at Kennesaw State College in the 
fall of 1993 and was taught at Reinhardt College in the winters 
of 1994 and 1995.
    26. Each year the course consisted of forty hours of 
lectures. Mr. Gingrich presented twenty hours of lecture and a 
co-professor from each of the respective colleges was 
responsible for the other twenty hours of the course.
    27. Each year the course was taught, it was also broadcast 
throughout the United States via satellite and local cable 
channels, and distributed via videotape and audiotape. The 
broadcasts and tapes only encompassed the twenty hours of 
lectures presented by Mr. Gingrich. Kennesaw State College 
Foundation and the Progress and Freedom Foundation were 
responsible for this dissemination of the course; Reinhardt 
College was not.
    28. The money raised and expended for the course was used 
primarily for the dissemination of the course as described in 
paragraph 27. In 1993 course expenditures amounted to 
approximately $300,000, in 1994 course expenditures amounted to 
approximately $450,000, and in 1995 course expenditures 
amounted to approximately $450,000.
    29. The main message of the course and the main message of 
the movement was renewing American civilization by replacing 
the welfare state with an opportunity society. ``Renewing 
American Civilization'' was also the main message of GOPAC and 
the main message of virtually every political and campaign 
speech made by Mr. Gingrich in 1993 and 1994. The course was, 
among other things, the primary means for developing and 
disseminating this message.
    30. Mr. Gingrich described the mission of the course and 
the movement as follows:

          We will develop a movement to renew American 
        Civilization using the 5 pillars of 21st Century 
        Freedom so people understand freedom and progress is 
        possible and their practical, daily lives can be far 
        better. Renewing American Civilization must be 
        communicated as an intellectual-cultural message with 
        governmental-political consequences. As people become 
        convinced American civilization must and can be renewed 
        and the 5 pillars will improve their lives we will 
        encourage them and help them to network together and 
        independently, autonomously initiate improvements 
        wherever they want. However, we will focus on economic 
        growth, health, and saving the inner city as the first 
        three key areas to improve. Our emphasis will be on 
        reshaping law and government to facilitate improvement 
        in all of american [sic] society. We will emphasize 
        elections, candidates and politics as vehicles for 
        change and the news media as a primary vehicle for 
        communications. To the degree Democrats agree with our 
        goals we will work with them but our emphasis is on the 
        Republican Party as the primary vehicle for renewing 
        American civilization.

    31. In a memorandum addressed to ``Various Gingrich 
Staffs,'' which included GOPAC employees and consultants as 
well as people involved in Mr. Gingrich's campaign, Mr. 
Gingrich described the broad application of the Renewing 
American Civilization message as follows:

          I believe the vision of renewing American 
        civilization will allow us to orient and focus our 
        activities for a long time to come.
          At every level from the national focus of the Whip 
        office to the 6th district of Georgia focus of the 
        Congressional office to the national political 
        education efforts of GOPAC and the re-election efforts 
        of FONG we should be able to use the ideas, language 
        and concepts of renewing American civilization.

    He then described the role of the course in this process:

          The course is only one is a series of strategies 
        designed to implement a strategy of renewing American 
        civilization.

    Another of Mr. Gingrich's strategic involving the course 
was:

          Getting Republican activists committed to renewing 
        American civilization, to setting up workshops built 
        around the course, and to opening the party up to every 
        citizen who wants to renew American civilization.

    32. In writing about the goals of the movement, Mr. 
Gingrich wrote:

          Our overall goal is to develop a blueprint for 
        renewing America by replacing the welfare state, 
        recruit, discover, arouse and network together 200,000 
        activists including candidates for elected office at 
        all levels, and arouse enough volunteers and 
        contributors to win a sweeping victory in 1996 and then 
        actually implement our victory in the first three 
        months of 1997.

    The ``sweeping victory'' referred to in this document is by 
Republicans. Mr. Gingrich went on to describe the specific 
goals within the overall goal, all of which were to be 
accomplished through the course.

          1. By April 1996 have a thorough, practical blueprint 
        for replacing the welfare state that can be understood 
        and supported by voters and activists.
          We will teach a course on Renewing American 
        civilization on ten Saturday mornings this fall and 
        make it available by satellite, by audio and video tape 
        and by computer to interested activists across the 
        country. A month will then be spent redesigning the 
        course based on feedback and better ideas. Then the 
        course will be retaught in Winter Quarter 1994. It will 
        then be rethought and redesigned for nine months of 
        critical re-evaluation based on active working groups 
        actually applying ideas across the country the course 
        will be taught for one final time in Winter Quarter 
        1996.
          2. Have created a movement and momentum which require 
        the national press corps to actually study the material 
        in order to report the phenomenon thus infecting them 
        with new ideas, new language and new perspectives.
          3. Have a cadre of at least 200,000 people committed 
        to the general ideas so they are creating an echo 
        effect on talk radio and in letters to the editor and 
        most of our candidates and campaigns reflect the 
        concepts of renewing America.
          Replacing the welfare state will require about 
        200,000 activists (willing to learn now [sic] to 
        replace the welfare state, to run for office and to 
        actually replace the welfare state once in office) and 
        about six million supporters (willing to write checks, 
        put up yard signs, or do a half day's volunteer work).

    33. In a speech at a GOPAC training seminar for candidates 
at the Virginia Republican Convention in June 1993, Mr. 
Gingrich described a partisan goal of the movement.

          We can't do much about the Democrats. They went too 
        far to the left; they're still too far to the left; 
        that's their problem. But we have a huge burden so that 
        everyone who wants to replace the welfare state and 
        everyone who wants to renew American civilization has a 
        home, and it's called being a Republican. We have to 
        really learn how to bring them all in.

    He then discussed the role of the course in the movement 
and described how the ``five pillars'' of the Renewing American 
Civilization course could be applied to political campaigns.

          Now, let me start just as a quick overview. First, as 
        I said earlier, American civilization is a 
        civilization. Very important. It is impossible for 
        anyone on the left to debate you on that topic.
          * * * * *
          But the reason I say that is if you go out and you 
        campaign on behalf of American civilization and you 
        want to renew American civilization, it is 
        linguistically impossible to oppose you. And how is 
        your opponent going to get up and say I'm against 
        American civilization?

    Near the end of the speech he stated:

          I believe, if you take the five pillars I've 
        described, if you find the three areas that will really 
        fit you, and are really in a position to help you, that 
        you are then going to have a language to explain how to 
        replace the welfare state, and three topics that are 
        going to arouse volunteers and arouse contributions and 
        help people say, Yes, I want this done.

    34. In a number of other instances, Mr. Gingrich applied 
the ideas of the course to partisan, political purposes. 
Examples include:
          a. In a document entitled ``House Republican Focus 
        for 1994'' Mr. Gingrich wrote:

          The Republican party can offer a better life for 
        virtually everyone if it applies the principles of 
        American civilization to create a more flexible, 
        decentralized market oriented system that uses the 
        Third Wave of change and accepts the disciplines of the 
        world market.
          These ideas are outlined in a 20 hour intellectual 
        framework ``Renewing American Civilization'' available 
        on National Empowerment Television every Wednesday from 
        1 pm to 3 p.m. and available on audio tape and video 
        tape from 1-800-TO RENEW.

          b. In a document Mr. Gingrich said was a briefing 
        paper for House Republican Members, he described the 
        movement to renew American civilization. Renewing 
        American civilization required the replacement of the 
        welfare state with an opportunity society. He wrote 
        that doing this will require at least 200,000 
        ``partners for progress'' willing to study the 
        principles of American civilization, work on campaigns, 
        run for office, and engage in other activities to 
        further the movement. Under the heading ``LEARNING THE 
        PRINCIPLES OF AMERICAN CIVILIZATION'' Mr. Gingrich 
        wrote, ``The course, `Renewing American Civilization', 
        is designed as a 20 hour introduction to the principles 
        necessary to replace the welfare state with an 
        opportunity society.'' On the next page entitled 
        ``Connecting the `Partners' to the `Principles,' '' Mr. 
        Gingrich described where the course was being taught, 
        including the fact that it was being broadcast for 
        fifty weeks during 1994 on National Empowerment 
        Television. He then wrote that, ``Our goal is to get 
        every potential partner for progress to take the course 
        and study the principles.''
          In a document entitled ``The 14 Steps Renewing 
        American Civilization by replacing the welfare state 
        with an opportunity society,'' Mr. Gingrich described a 
        relationship between the course and the movement. He 
        began with the proposition that the welfare state had 
        failed and needed to be replaced. In describing the 
        replacement, Mr. Gingrich wrote that it:

          Must be an opportunity society based on the 
        principles of American civilization. . . .
          These principles each receive two hours of 
        introduction in ``Renewing American Civilization'', a 
        course taught at Reinhardt College. The course is 
        available on National Empowerment Television from 1-3 
        p.m. every Wednesday and by videotape or audiotape by 
        calling 1-800-TO-RENEW.

    Mr. Gingrich then wrote:

          The Democrats are the party of the welfare state. Too 
        many years in office have led to arrogance of power and 
        to continuing violations of the basic values of self-
        government.
          Only by voting Republican can the welfare state be 
        replaced and an opportunity society be created.

    35. From in or about June 1993 through in or about December 
1993, the course was funded and operated with tax-exempt funds 
under the auspices of the Kennesaw State College Foundation, an 
organization exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of 
the Internal Revenue Code. From in or about December 1993 
through in or about July 1995, the course was funded and 
operated under the auspices of the Progress and Freedom 
Foundation, an organization exempt from taxation under section 
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In 1994 and 1995 the 
course was taught at Reinhardt College, an organization exempt 
from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
Code.
    36. Under the Internal Revenue Code, an organization which 
is exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) must be 
operated exclusively for exempt purposes. The presence of a 
single non-exempt purpose, if more than insubstantial in 
nature, will destroy the exemption regardless of the number or 
importance of truly exempt purposes. Conferring a benefit on 
private interests is a non-exempt purpose. Under the Internal 
Revenue Code, an organization which is exempt from taxation 
under section 501(c)(3) is also prohibited from any 
participation in a political campaign or from providing any 
support to a political action committee. These prohibitions 
reflect Congressional concerns that tax-payer funds not be used 
to subsidize political activity.
    37. Although Mr. Gingrich consulted with the House 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (``Committee'') 
prior to teaching the course, he did not seek specific legal 
advice concerning the application of section 501(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code in regard to the facts described in 
paragraphs 17 through 35 from an appropriate source and did not 
take affirmative steps to ensure that such legal advice was 
obtained by others from an appropriate source.
    38. During the Preliminary Inquiry the Subcommittee 
consulted with an expert in the law of tax-exempt 
organizations. Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of the 
Kennesaw State College Foundation, the Progress and Freedom 
Foundation, and Reinhardt College in regard to the course 
entitled ``Renewing American Civilization'' and the activities 
of others on behalf of those organizations with Mr. Gingrich's 
knowledge and approval were reviewed by the expert. The expert 
concluded that those activities violated Kennesaw State College 
Foundation's status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
Revenue Code, the Progress and Freedom Foundation's status 
under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and 
Reinhardt College's status under section 501(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code in that, among other things, those 
activities were intended to confer more than insubstantial 
benefits on Mr. Gingrich, GOPAC, and other Republican entities 
and candidates.
    39. The Subcommittee also heard from tax counsel retained 
by Mr. Gingrich for the purposes of this Preliminary Inquiry. 
According to Mr. Gingrich's tax counsel, this type of activity 
would not violate the status of the Kennesaw State College 
Foundation, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, or Reinhardt 
College under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
    40. Both the Subcommittee's expert and Mr. Gingrich's tax 
counsel agree that had they been consulted about this type of 
activity prior to its taking place, they would have advised 
that it not be conducted under the auspices of an organization 
exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
Revenue Code.
    41. If the legal advice described in paragraph 40 had been 
sought and followed, most, if not all, of the tax-deductible 
charitable contributions would not have been used for the 
activities described in paragraphs 17 through 35. As a result, 
the public controversy involving the legality of a Member's 
involvement with organizations exempt from taxation under 
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code concerning 
activities described in paragraphs 17 through 35 would not have 
occurred.
    42. On or about September 7, 1994, a complaint was filed 
against Mr. Gingrich with the Committee. The complaint centered 
on the course entitled ``Renewing American Civilization.'' 
Among other things, it alleged that Mr. Gingrich had used his 
congressional staff to work on the course and that he had 
misused organizations that were exempt from taxation under 
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code because the 
course was a partisan, political project, with significant 
involvement by GOPAC, and was not a permissible activity for a 
section 501(c)(3) organization.
    43. On or about October 4, 1994, Mr. Gingrich wrote the 
Committee in response to the complaint and primarily addressed 
the issues concerning the use of congressional staff for the 
course. In doing so he stated:

          I would like to make it abundantly clear that those 
        who were paid for course preparation were paid by 
        either the Kennesaw State Foundation, [sic] the 
        Progress and Freedom Foundation or GOPAC. . . . Those 
        persons paid by one of the aforementioned groups 
        include: Dr. Jeffrey Eisenach, Mike DuGally, Jana 
        Rogers, Patty Stechschultez [sic], Pamla Prochnow, Dr. 
        Steve Hanser, Joe Gaylord and Nancy Desmond.

    44. On or about October 31, 1994, the Committee sent Mr. 
Gingrich a letter asking for additional information concerning 
the allegations of misuse of tax-exempt organizations in regard 
to the course. The Committee also asked for information 
relating to the involvement of GOPAC in various aspects of the 
course.
    45. Whether any aspects of the course were political or 
partisan in their motivation, application, or design was 
material to the Committee's deliberations in regard to the 
complaint. Whether GOPAC had any involvement with the course 
was also material to the Committee's deliberations in regard to 
the complaint.
    46. In November 1994, Mr. Gingrich retained counsel to 
represent him in connection with the Committee's investigation. 
According to Mr. Gingrich, he then relied on counsel to respond 
to and otherwise address issues and concerns raised by the 
Committee. Mr. Gingrich, however, remained ultimately 
responsible for fully, fairly, and accurately responding to the 
Committee.
    47. Between on or about December 8, 1994, and on or about 
December 15, 1994, Mr. Gingrich delivered or caused to be 
delivered to the Committee a letter dated December 8, 1994, 
signed by Mr. Gingrich in response to the Committee's letter 
described in paragraph 44. According to testimony before the 
Subcommittee, the six-page December 8, 1994 letter was prepared 
by Mr. Gingrich's attorney and submitted to Mr. Gingrich for 
review during the transition following the 1994 election. In 
the December 8, 1994 letter Mr. Gingrich made the following 
statements:

          [The course] was, by design and application, 
        completely nonpartisan. It was and remains about ideas, 
        not politics. (Page 2).
          The idea to teach ``Renewing American Civilization'' 
        arose wholly independent of GOPAC, because the course, 
        unlike the committee, is non-partisan and apolitical. 
        My motivation for teaching these ideas arose not as a 
        politician, but rather as a former educator and 
        concerned American citizen. . . . Page 4).
          The fact is, ``Renewing American Civilization'' and 
        GOPAC have never had any official relationship. (Page 
        4).
          GOPAC . . . is a political organization whose 
        interests are not directly advanced by this non-
        partisan educational endeavor. (Page 5).
          As a political action committee, GOPAC never 
        participated in the administration of ``Renewing 
        American Civilization.'' (Page 4).
          Where employees of GOPAC simultaneously assisted the 
        project, they did so as private, civic-minded 
        individuals contributing time and effort to a 501(c)(3) 
        organization. (Page 4).
          Ancitipating media or political attempts to link the 
        Course to [GOPAC], ``Renewing American Civilization'' 
        organizers went out of their way to avoid even the 
        appearances of improper association with GOPAC. Before 
        we had raised the first dollar or sent out the first 
        brochure, Course Project Director Jeff Eisenach 
        resigned his position at GOPAC. (Page 4).

    48. On or about January 26, 1995, an amended complaint 
against Mr. Gingrich was filed with the Committee. The amended 
complaint encompassed the same allegations as the complaint 
described in paragraph 42, as well as additional allegations.
    49. On or about March 27, 1995, Mr. Gingrich's attorney 
prepared, signed, and caused a fifty-two page letter dated 
March 27, 1995, with 31 exhibits to be delivered to the 
Committee responding to the amended complaint. The March 27, 
1995 letter was submitted to Mr. Gingrich shortly before it was 
filed with the Committee.
    50. Prior to the letter from Mr. Gingrich's attorney being 
delivered to the Committee, Mr. Gingrich reviewed it and 
approved its submission to the Committee. The ultimate 
responsibility for the accuracy of information submitted to the 
Committee remained with Mr. Gingrich.
    51. The March 27, 1995 letter contains the following 
statements:

          As Ex. 13 demonstrated, the course solicitation . . . 
        materials are completely non-partisan. (Page 19, 
        footnote 1).
          GOPAC did not become involved in the Speaker's 
        academic affairs because it is a political organization 
        whose interests are not advanced by this non-partisan 
        educational endeavor. (Page 35).
          The Renewing American Civilization course and GOPAC 
        have never had any relationship, official or otherwise. 
        (Page 35).
          As noted previously, GOPAC has had absolutely no role 
        in funding, promoting, or administering Renewing 
        American Civilization. (Pages 34-35).
          GOPAC has not been involved in course fundraising and 
        has never contributed any money or services to the 
        course. (Page 28).
          Anticipating media or political attempts to link the 
        course to GOPAC, course organizers went out of their 
        way to avoid even the appearance of associating with 
        GOPAC. Prior to becoming Course Project Director, 
        Jeffrey Eisenach resigned his position at GOPAC and has 
        not returned. (Page 36).

    52. Mr. Gingrich engaged in conduct that did not reflect 
creditably on the House of Representatives in that: regardless 
of the resolution of whether the activities described in 
paragraphs 2 through 41 constitute a violation of section 
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, by failing to seek and 
follow the legal advice described in paragraphs 15 and 40, Mr. 
Gingrich failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that the 
activities described in paragraphs 2 through 41 were in 
accordance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; 
and on or about March 27, 1995, and on or about December 8, 
1994, information was transmitted to the Committee by and on 
behalf of Mr. Gingrich that was material to matters under 
consideration by the Committee, which information, as Mr. 
Gingrich should have known, was inaccurate, incomplete, and 
unreliable.
    53. The conduct described in this Statement of Alleged 
Violation constitutes a violation of Rule 43(1) of the Rules of 
the United States House of Representatives.
                               APPENDIX C

 Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee on Standards of Official 
      Conduct in the Matter of Representative Barbara-Rose Collins

       statement of alleged violation, adopted september 12, 1996

               i. relevant standards of conduct and laws

    At all times relevant to the violations hereafter alleged, 
the pertinent provisions of House Rules and laws stated as 
follows:
A. House Rule XLIII, Clause 1 (Code of Official Conduct)
          ``A Member, officer or employee of the House of 
        Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a 
        manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of 
        Representatives.''
B. House Rule XLIII, Clause 6 (Code of Official Conduct)
          ``A Member of the House of Representatives shall keep 
        his campaign funds separate from his personal funds. A 
        Member shall convert no campaign funds to personal use 
        in excess of reimbursement for legitimate and 
        verifiable campaign expenditures and shall expend no 
        funds from his campaign account not attributable to 
        bona fide campaign or political purposes.''
C. House Rule XLIII, Clause 8 (Code of Official Conduct)
          ``A Member or officer of the House of Representatives 
        shall retain no one under his payroll authority who 
        does not perform official duties commensurate with the 
        compensation received in the offices of the employing 
        authority.''
D. House Rule XLV
          ``No Member may maintain or have maintained for his 
        use an unofficial office account.'' According to the 
        Committee's interpretation of Rule 45, ``outside 
        private donations, funds, campaign contributions, or 
        in-kind services may not be used to support the 
        activities of, or pay the expenses of, a congressional 
        office.'' (House Ethics Manual at 217.) Private funds 
        may be used ``only to support private or political, and 
        not official, activities.'' (Id. at 218; see also id. 
        at 221.)
E. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a)
          ``Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects 
        for which the appropriations were made except as 
        otherwise provided by law.''
F. Committee on House Administration, Congressional Handbook, 
        Regulations for Allowances and Expenses of Members, Committees 
        and Employees (June 1993)
          Salary adjustments of an employee of a Member 
        ``should reflect services performed during the 
        particular pay period or may reflect exceptional 
        performance during the course of an allowance year. 
        Increases should be made only when the services of the 
        individual(s) warrant.'' (Page 7)
          ``Each Member is authorized an Official Expenses 
        Allowance to pay ordinary and necessary business 
        expenses incurred by the Member (and/or the Member's 
        employees) . . . in support of the conduct of the 
        Member's official and representational duties to the 
        district from which he/she was elected. . . . This 
        allowance may not be used to defray any personal, 
        political or campaign related expenses . . . or 
        expenses related to the conduct of other than official 
        and representational business.'' (Page 23)
          ``Each Member and his/her clerk-hire employees may be 
        reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in support of 
        the conduct of the Member's official and 
        representational duties to the district from which the 
        Member was elected. (Page 36)
          ``Travel expenses incurred by someone other than the 
        Member or his/her employees are not payable from the 
        Official Expenses Allowance.'' (Page 36)
          ``Travel expenses incurred in support of the conduct 
        of personal, political, or campaign-related business . 
        . or in support of the conduct of other than official 
        and representational business are not payable from the 
        Official Expenses Allowance.'' (Page 36)
G. Committee on House Oversight, Members' Congressional Handbook, 
        Regulations Governing the Members' Representational Allowance 
        of the U.S. House of Representatives (1995)
          ``All Members have one `Members' Representational 
        Allowance' (MRA) available to support the conduct of 
        official and representational duties to the district 
        from which elected. . . . The MRA may not be used to 
        pay for any personal, political, campaign, or committee 
        expenses. (Page 1) (Emphasis in original)
          ``Members may adjust, in any month, a Clerk Hire 
        employee's salary to reflect exceptional, meritorious, 
        or less than satisfactory service.'' (Page 9)
         ``Travel expenses incurred by someone other than 
        Members or their Clerk Hire employees are not 
        reimbursable from the MRA.'' (Page 46) (Emphasis in 
        original)

H. Regulations Regarding Solicitation Promulgated by Committee on 
        Standards of Official Conduct

         The House Ethics Manual states that ``Members, 
        officers, and employees of the House may solicit funds 
        on behalf of charitable organizations qualified under 
        Sec. 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, provided that 
        no official resources are used, no official endorsement 
        is implied, and no direct personal benefit results. No 
        solicitation may bear official letterhead, the Great 
        Seal, or the terms `Congress of the United States,' 
        `House of Representatives,' or `official business.' . . 
        . Questions regarding solicitations on behalf of 
        entities that are not charities qualified under 
        Sec. 170(c) should be addressed to the Committee.'' 
        (House Ethics Manual at 51) (emphasis in original). 
        That guidance is based on an October 9, 1990, 
        memorandum from the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct to all Members, Officers, and Employees of the 
        House of Representatives. In addition to the guidance 
        discussed above, that memorandum states: ``The 
        Committee will address on a case-by-case basis the 
        extent to which a Member, officer, or employee may 
        personally control the distribution of funds from a 
        charity for which he or she solicits funds.'' (House 
        Ethics Manual at 65)

                         ii. alleged violations

   count i--misuse of official resources (campaign activity by house 
                               employees)

    The record indicates that during calendar years 1994 and 
1995, House employees in the district and Washington, D.C. 
congressional offices of the Respondent, Representative 
Barbara-Rose Collins, regularly performed work for the 
Respondent's campaign at times when they should have been 
performing official duties, and often in the congressional 
office, with the Respondent's knowledge and approval. Such 
activities included: (1) collecting campaign contribution 
checks from a campaign post office box; (2) depositing campaign 
contribution checks; (3) maintaining the financial records of 
the Respondent's campaign organization; (4) paying the 
campaign's bills; and (5) organizing campaign events. Because 
the Respondent permitted appropriations to be applied to 
objects other than those for which the appropriations were 
made, the Committee has reason to believe that the Respondent 
violated 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a) and corresponding Regulations 
of the Committee on House Administration and the House 
Committee on Oversight. Because of the frequency with which 
employees of the Respondent performed campaign-related 
activities in the manner described above, and the Respondent's 
knowledge and approval of such activities, the Committee also 
has reason to believe that the Respondent conducted herself in 
a manner that does not reflect creditably on the House of 
Representatives, in violation of the Code of Official Conduct 
as set forth in Clause 1 of Rule XLIII of the House of the 
Representatives.

   count ii--misuse of official resources (use of official funds for 
                           campaign purposes)

    The record indicates that on or about April 4, 1995, Jerry 
Springs, an employee of the Respondent's congressional office 
in Detroit, traveled to Washington, D.C. for the primary 
purpose of attending a fundraising event benefiting the 
Respondent's campaign committee. The record also indicates 
that, with the Respondent's knowledge and approval, official 
funds of the House of Representatives were used to pay for Mr. 
Springs' lodging in Washington. The record indicates that the 
Respondent's congressional office in Washington, D.C. submitted 
a voucher to the House Office of Finance regarding Mr. Springs' 
lodging expenses, which represented that the purpose of the 
travel was ``official business.'' The record also indicates 
that the Respondent signed and approved that voucher.
    The record further indicates that the Respondent's 
congressional office, with the knowledge and approval of the 
Respondent, used official funds of the House of Representatives 
to purchase a round-trip airline ticket from Detroit to 
Washington, D.C. in the name of Milton Harris, another employee 
of the Respondent's Detroit congressional office. The record 
indicates that the Respondent's congressional office submitted 
a voucher to the House Office of Finance regarding the cost of 
Mr. Harris' round-trip air transportation, which represented 
that the purpose of the travel was ``official business.'' The 
record also indicates that the Respondent signed and approved 
that voucher. The record indicates that Mr. Harris did not use 
the airline ticket purchased in his name, and that instead, the 
ticket was used by Leon Robinson, a personal friend of the 
Respondent's who was not employed by the House of 
Representatives, with the knowledge and approval of the 
Respondent.
    Because the Respondent permitted appropriations to be 
applied to objects other than those for which the 
appropriations were made, the Committee has reason to believe 
that the Respondent violated 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a) and 
corresponding Regulations of the Committee on House 
Administration and the House Committee on Oversight. For the 
reasons cited above, the Committee also has reason to believe 
that the Respondent acted in a manner that does not reflect 
creditably on the House of Representatives, in violation of the 
Code of Official Conduct as set forth in Clause 1 of Rule XLIII 
of the House of the Representatives.

   count iii--misuse of official resources (performance of personal 
                      services by house employees)

    The record indicates that during calendar years 1994 and 
1995, House employees in the Respondent's congressional offices 
in Detroit and Washington, D.C. regularly performed personal 
services for the Respondent at times when they should have been 
performing official duties, with the Respondent's knowledge and 
approval. Such personal service included: (1) paying the 
Respondent's personal bills; (2) picking up the Respondent's 
personal mail; (3) cleaning the Respondent's personal 
residence; and (4) affording access to the Respondent's 
personal residence for deliveries and the performance of 
personal services. Because the Respondent permitted 
appropriations to be applied to objects other than those for 
which the appropriations were made, the Committee has reason to 
believe that the Respondent violated 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a) and 
corresponding Regulations of the Committee on House 
Administration and the House Committee on Oversight. Because 
the regularity with which House employees performed personal 
services for the Respondent, the Committee also has reason to 
believe that the Respondent conducted herself in a manner that 
does not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives, in 
violation of the Code of Official Conduct as set forth in 
Clause 1 of Rule XLIII of the House of Representatives.

   count iv--Misuse of official resources (improper use of vouchered 
                            postage stamps)

    The record indicates that during calendar years 1994 and 
1995, the Washington, D.C. congressional office of the 
Respondent purchased first-class postage stamps with official 
funds that were used by employees of the Respondent's 
congressional offices to pay the Respondent's personal bills 
and bills incurred by the Respondent's campaign committee, with 
the knowledge and approval of the Respondent. Because the 
Respondent permitted appropriations to be applied to objects 
other than those for which the appropriations were made, the 
Committee has reason to believe that the Respondent violated 31 
U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a) and corresponding Regulations of the 
Committee on House Administration and the House Committee on 
Oversight. Because the record indicates that the above-
described use of vouchered postage stamps occurred with the 
knowledge and approval of the Respondent, the Committee also 
has reason to believe that the Respondent did not conduct 
herself in a manner that reflects creditably on the House of 
Representatives, in violation of the Code of Official Conduct 
as set forth in Clause 1 of Rule XLIII of the House of 
Representatives.

   count v--misuse of official resources (use of official funds for 
                           personal purposes)

    The record indicates that during calendar years 1994 and 
1995, the congressional offices of the Respondent used official 
funds to send several packages by overnight mail concerning the 
Respondent's personal affairs, with the Respondent's knowledge 
and approval. Because the Respondent permitted appropriations 
to be applied to objects other than those for which the 
appropriations were made, the Committee has reason to believe 
that the Respondent violated 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a) and 
corresponding Regulations of the Committee on House 
Administration and the House Committee on Oversight. Because 
the record indicates that official funds were used in the 
manner described with the knowledge and approval of the 
Respondent, the Committee also has reason to believe that the 
Respondent did not conduct herself in a manner that reflects 
creditably on the House of Representatives, in violation of the 
Code of Official Conduct as set forth in Clause 1 of Rule XLIII 
of the House of Representatives.

  count vi--misuse of campaign resources (commingling and conversion)

    The record indicates that funds from the Respondent's 
campaign committee improperly were used for the Respondent's 
personal purposes on several occasions during calendar years 
1994 and 1995, with the knowledge and approval of the 
Respondent.
    1. The record indicates that on or about June 30, 1994, the 
Respondent's campaign committee, ``Friends of Barbara-Rose 
Collins,'' issued a check in the amount of $3,911.00 payable to 
Barbara-Rose Collins, purportedly for reimbursement of expenses 
concerning a campaign event. The record also indicates that the 
Respondent endorsed that check and, on or about July 1, 1994, 
caused it to be deposited in her personal checking account at 
the Wright Patman Congressional Credit Union (``Credit 
Union'').
    2. The record indicates that on or about August 3, 1994, 
Friends of Barbara-Rose Collins issued a check in the amount of 
$2,900.00 payable to ``Cash'' in connection with fundraising 
events and the NAACP. The record also indicates that the 
Respondent endorsed the check and, on or about August 5, 1994, 
caused it to be deposited in her personal checking account at 
the Credit Union.
    3. The record indicates that:
          a. On or about November 8, 1994, Friends of Barbara-
        Rose Collins issued a check in the amount of $8,500.00 
        payable to Jerry Springs, District Director of the 
        Respondent's congressional office in Detroit, 
        purportedly for election day poll workers and other 
        election day expenses.
          b. On the same day, November 8, 1994, Mr. Springs 
        cashed the same $8,500.00 check at Comerica Bank in 
        Detroit.
          c. On or about November 14, 1994, Mr. Springs used 
        cash to purchase a cashier's check at Comerican Bank in 
        Detroit in the amount of $8.500.00, made payable to 
        Barbara-Rose Collins.
          d. On or about November 15, 1994, the same cashier's 
        check purchased by Mr. Springs in the amount of 
        $8.500.00 was deposited in to the Respondent's personal 
        checking account at the Credit Union.
    4. The record indicates that:
          a. On or about March 6, 1995, Friends of Barbara-Rose 
        Collins issued a check in the amount of $2,400.00, 
        payable to ``Comerica.'' That check was co-signed and 
        endorsed by the Respondent.
          b. On or about the same day, March 6, 1995, Comerica 
        Bank in Detroit issued a cashier's check payable to 
        Barbara-Rose Collins in the amount of $2,400.00.
          c. On or about March 9, 1995, $2,400.00 was deposited 
        into the Respondent's checking account at the Credit 
        Union.
    5. The record indicates that:
          a. On or about August 7, 1995, the Respondent 
        purchased a freezer, oven, and electric dryer from ABC 
        Warehouse in Southfield, Michigan.
          b. The Respondent effected that purchase by means of 
        a check in the amount of $913.72 drawn on the account 
        of Friends of Barbara-Rose Collins and signed by the 
        Respondent.
          c. The Respondent instructed a salesperson at ABC 
        Warehouse to have the oven and dryer delivered to her 
        vacation home at Shay Lake, Michigan.
          d. Employees of the Respondent's congressional office 
        in Detroit subsequently delivered the oven and dryer to 
        the Respondent's home at Shay Lake, Michigan.
          e. On or about October 3, 1995, the Respondent issued 
        a personal check in the amount of $354.00 payable to 
        the Friends of Barbara-Rose Collins in partial 
        reimbursement for the campaign's purchase of the oven 
        and dryer.
    Based on the foregoing, the Committee has reason to believe 
that the Respondent commingled campaign and personal funds, and 
converted campaign funds to personal use, in violation of the 
Code of Official Conduct as set forth in Clause 6 of Rule XLIII 
of the House of Representatives. In addition, the Committee has 
reason to believe that the Respondent conducted herself in a 
manner that does not reflect creditability on the House of 
Representatives, in violation of the Code of Office Conduct, as 
set forth in Clause 1 of Rule XLIII of the House of the 
Representatives.

COUNT VII--MISUSE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS (EXPENDITURE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS NOT 
       ATTRIBUTABLE TO BONA FIDE CAMPAIGN OR POLITICAL PURPOSES)

    The record indicates that the Respondent's campaign 
committee made numerous expenditures during calendar year 1994 
and 1995 that were not attributable to bona fide campaign or 
political purposes, with the knowledge and approval of the 
Respondent.
    1. The record indicates that on or about October 26, 1994, 
the Respondent caused a check to be issued on the account of 
her campaign committee in the amount of $1,000.00, payable to 
Detroit Edison. A handwritten annotation on the check indicated 
that the purpose of the check was to ``Reconnect 19713 
Ridgemont St. Clair Shores,'' while a campaign filing with the 
Federal Election Commission (``FEC'') dated January 8, 1996, 
indicated that the purpose of the disbursement was to 
``reconnect 19731 Ridgemont constituents.'' The $1,000.00 
campaign expenditure was made on behalf of Joyce Smith, an 
employee of the Respondent's Detroit congressional office, for 
the purpose of enabling Ms. Smith to pay her residential 
electric bill. Ms. Smith was not a constituent at the time of 
the payment, and she later reimbursed the Respondent in two 
direct cash payments of $500.00 each.
    2. The record indicates that on or about December 6, 1994, 
a check drawn on the account of the Respondent's campaign 
committee was issued in the amount of $4,000.00, payable to 
Jerry Springs, District Director of the Respondent's 
congressional office in Detroit. The record indicates that Mr. 
Springs cashed the check on or about December 7, 1994. A 
campaign filing with the FEC dated January 8, 1996, represented 
that the purpose of the expenditure related to the ``Panafest 
event,'' while the check register corresponding to the 
$4,000.00 check stated that the purpose of the payment 
concerned the ``Panafest Reception.'' The record indicates that 
the term ``Panafest'' pertains to an event that occurred in 
Ghana during a personal visit there in December 1994 by the 
Respondent and members of her congressional staff, including 
Mr. Springs.
    The Record indicates that:
          a. On or about Janaury 20, 1995, a check drawn on the 
        account of the Respondent's campaign committee, co-
        signed by the Respondent, was issued in the amount of 
        $8,043.11, payable to American Express.
          b. That payment to American Express related at least 
        in part to personal expenses incurred by the Respondent 
        at the ``Golden Tulip Hotel,'' which, according to the 
        record, is a hotel in Ghana that the Respondent visited 
        during her December 1994 trip to Africa.
          c. According to documents filed with the FEC by the 
        Respondent's campaign committee, on or about February 
        10, 1995, the Respondent's campaign committee disbursed 
        $1,673.00 to ``African Art Market in Accra, Ghana'' for 
        ``Art objects for offices'' in ``DC/District.''
    4. On or about February 9, 1995, a check drawn on the 
account of the Respondent's campaign committee was issued in 
the amount of $300.00, payable to ``Mary Pointer'' for 
``Services Rendered.'' The corresponding check register also 
stated that the purpose of the expenditure was ``services 
rendered,'' while a campaign filing with the FEC dated January 
8, 1996, represented that the purpose concerned ``maintenance 
campaign mtgs.'' The record indicates that the $300.00 in 
campaign funds were used to pay for the cleaning of the 
Respondent's personal residence in Detroit.
    Based on the foregoing, the Committee has reason to believe 
that the Respondent violated the Code of Official Conduct as 
set forth in Clause 6 of Rule XLIII of the House of 
Representatives. In addition, the Committee has reason to 
believe that the Respondent conducted herself in a manner that 
does not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives, in 
violation of the Code of Official Conduct as set forth in 
Clause 1 of Rule XLIII of the House of Representatives.

           COUNT VIII--MISUSE IF SCHOLARSHIP COMMITTEE FUNDS

    The record indicates that the Respondent commingled with 
personal funds, and converted to personal use, funds of the 
Collins Congressional Community Scholarship Committee 
(``CCCSC'') on several occasions during calendar years 1994 and 
1995.
    1. The record indicates that on or about May 3, 1994, a 
check drawn on the account of the CCCSC was issued in the 
amount of $9,800.00, payable to ``Cash'' for ``Scholarships.'' 
The record indicates that the Respondent signed and endorsed 
that check. The record further indicates that on or about May 
4, 1994, the same check in the amount of $9,800.00 was 
deposited into the Respondent's personal checking account at 
the Credit Union.
    2. The record indicates that on or about August 15, 1994, a 
check drawn on the account of the CCCSC was issued in the 
amount of $1,200.00, payable to Barbara-Rose Collins for 
``Kande Dean.'' The record indicates that the Respondent signed 
and endorsed that check, and that check was cashed on or about 
August 15, 1994.
    3. The record indicates that on or about October 24, 1994, 
a check drawn on the account of the CCCSC was issued in the 
amount of $3,812.11, payable to American Express. The Record 
also indicates that this payment was made in connection with 
the Respondent's personal American Express account.
    4. The record indicates that on or about November 9, 1994, 
a check drawn on the account of the CCCSC was issued in the 
amount of $8,000.00, signed by Barbara-Rose Collins and payable 
to Valerie Nicholas for ``Festival of Giving.`` At the time, 
Ms. Nicholas was an employee of the Respondent's congressional 
office in Washington, D.C. The Respondent directed Ms. Nicholas 
to cash the check on behalf of the Respondent, and to bring the 
cash to the Respondent at her home. On or about November 10, 
1994, Ms. Nicholas cashed the $8,000.00 check at Riggs Bank in 
Washington, D.C. and delivered the cash proceeds to the 
Respondent at her home in Virginia.
    5. The record indicates that:
          a. On or about May 7, 1995, the Respondent issued a 
        check drawn on her personal account at the Credit Union 
        in the amount of $5,000.00, payable to ``Classic 
        Consignments.'' Classic Consignments is a business in 
        Palm Desert, California, that sells second-hand home 
        furnishings and other merchandise.
          b. On or about May 9, 1995, a check drawn on the 
        account of the CCCSC was issued in the amount of 
        $8,900.00, payable to ``Comerica/Cash'' for ``Classic 
        Consignments.'' The Respondent signed the check.
          c. On or about May 9, 1995, the same $8,900.00 check 
        drawn on the account of the CCCSC was deposited into 
        the Respondent's personal account at Comerica Bank in 
        Detroit.
          d. On or about May 13, 1995, the Respondent purchased 
        several personal items from Classic Consignments, 
        including chandeliers and a Tiffany lamp, at a cost of 
        $4,400.00. The Respondent ordered the delivery of the 
        items to her home in Detroit, bringing the total cost 
        of the transaction to approximately $5,646.00
          e. On or about June 1, 1995, the Respondent issued a 
        check drawn on her personal account at the Credit Union 
        in the amount of $8,900.00, payable to the CCCSC in 
        reimbursement for $8,900.00 drawn from the CCCSC 
        account on or about May 9, 1995. On or about September 
        20, 1995, that check was deposited into the CCCSC 
        account at Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C.
    6. On or about October 3, 1995, a check drawn on the 
account of the CCCSC was issued in the amount of $3,888.90, 
payable to American Express for ``CBC Week Hotel Expenses & 
Misc. Hyatt Regency.'' Respondent signed the check. The record 
indicates that the proceeds from the check were used in 
connection with an annual social event in Washington, D.C. 
relating to the Congressional Black Caucus.
    7. The record indicates that on or about October 27, 1995, 
the Respondent closed the bank account of the CCCSC at Riggs 
Bank in Washington, D.C. In closing the account, Respondent 
issued a check drawn on the account in the amount of 
$12,367.91, made payable to ``Riggs/Barbara-Rose Collins.'' On 
or about the same day, the Respondent cashed the check in the 
amount of $12,367.91 and used the cash proceeds to purchase a 
cashier's check from Riggs Bank in the amount of $6,853.91, 
payable to herself. The Respondent also purchased a second 
cashier's check from Riggs Bank in the amount of $4,000.00, 
payable to ``Operation Get Down.'' The latter cashier's check 
bears the Respondent's endorsement and, beneath the 
endorsement, the handwritten annotation, ``Not used for purpose 
intended.''
    Based on the foregoing, the Committee has reason to believe 
that the Respondent conducted herself in a manner that does not 
reflect creditably on the House of Representatives, in 
violation of the Code of Official Conduct as set forth in 
Clause 1 of Rule XLIII of the House of Representatives.

              count ix--maintenance of unofficial account

    1. The record indicates that in early October 1995, Jerry 
Springs, the District Director of the Respondent's 
congressional office in Detroit, transmitted a check in the 
amount of $500.00, drawn on the account of the Respondent's 
campaign committee, To Deputy District Director Cecilia Walker. 
A handwritten annotation on the check indicates that the 
purpose of the check was to provide a fund for ``petty cash'' 
expenses, and the record indicates that Mr. Springs advised Ms. 
Walker that the check was to be used for petty cash purposes. 
In addition, in late October or early November 1995, the 
Respondent personally gave a check in the amount of $1,000.00, 
drawn on her campaign committee's account, to Ms. Walker with 
instructions to use the money for petty cash expenses. The 
Respondent directed Ms. Walker to use petty cash consisting of 
campaign funds for expenditures concerning the district 
congressional office. The record also indicates that the petty 
cash fund was used to purchase items for the Respondent's 
congressional office in Detroit.
    2. The record indicates that on or about May 16, 1995, the 
Respondent's campaign committee disbursed $270.00 to the 
``Senegal Art Market'' to purchase ``art carvings'' for the 
Respondent's congressional offices in Washington, D.C. and 
Detroit.
    Because outside donations, including campaign 
contributions, may not be used to support the activities of, or 
pay the expenses of, a congressional office, the Committee has 
reason to believe that the Respondent violated Rule XLV of the 
House of Representatives. Because the Respondent conducted 
herself in a manner that does not reflect creditably on the 
House of Representatives, the Committee also has reason to 
believe that the Respondent violated the Code of Official 
Conduct as set forth in Clause 1 of Rule XLIII of the House of 
Representatives.

  COUNT X--HOUSE EMPLOYEE RAISES NOT COMMENSURATE WITH OFFICIAL DUTIES

    The record indicates that in the summer and fall of 1994, 
the Respondent awarded substantial bonuses to several members 
of her congressional staff in the form of temporary salary 
increases. The record further indicates that each of the House 
employees who received these salary adjustments traveled to 
Africa with Representative Collins in December 1994, that the 
trip to Africa was personal in nature, and that the purpose of 
the adjustments was to enable those employees to pay for their 
travel to Africa. The Committee therefore has reason to believe 
that the compensation awarded to the House employees in 
question was not commensurate with the performance of their 
official duties, and that Representative Collins violated the 
Code of Official Conduct as set forth in Clause 8 of Rule XLIII 
of the House of Representatives. Because the Respondent 
conducted herself in a manner that does not reflect creditably 
on the House of Representatives, the Committee also has reason 
to believe that the Respondent violated the Code of Official 
Conduct as set forth in Clause 1 of Rule XLIII of the House of 
Representatives.

                    COUNT XI--IMPROPER SOLICITATION

    The record indicates that on or about August 3, 1994, the 
Respondent's congressional office in Washington, D.C. sent 
letters to private corporations soliciting financial 
contributions to sponsor the ``Michigan Bash IV,'' described in 
the solicitation letter as a ``gala reception'' occurring on 
September 16, 1994, in connection with the Congressional Black 
Caucus. The letter was sent on Representative Collins' official 
congressional letterhead bearing the term ``Congress of the 
United States,'' and it was signed by Representative Collins. 
The letter directed that contribution checks ``should be made 
payable to the Collins Congressional Community Service 
Committee, and forwarded to 1108 Longworth HOB, Washington, 
D.C. 20515''--the location of Representative Collins' 
congressional office at that time. In addition, the letter 
stated that ``[c]hecks will be deposited directly into an 
account set up specifically for the reception.''
    The record indicates that the ``Collins Congressional 
Community Service Committee'' is the same organization known as 
the ``Collins Congressional-Community Scholarship Committee'' 
(``CCCSC''). In addition, the record indicates that (1) the 
CCCSC was not an organization qualified under Sec. 170 of the 
Internal Revenue Code; (2) neither Representative Collins nor 
any member of her congressional staff obtained permission from 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to solicit 
contributions to the CCCSC; (3) a separate financial account 
was not established for the deposit of contribution checks for 
the ``Michigan Bash IV''; (4) several thousand dollars in 
contributions were received as a result of the solicitation for 
the ``Michigan Bash IV''; (5) checks were deposited into the 
pre-existing bank account of the CCCSC in Washington, D.C.; and 
(6) Representative Collins personally exercised control over 
funds in the bank account of the CCCSC.
    Based on the foregoing, the Committee has reason to believe 
that the Respondent violated applicable House rules governing 
solicitations. The Committee also has reason to believe that by 
soliciting private donations to a fund that she controlled, the 
Respondent conducted herself in a manner that does not reflect 
creditably on the House of Representatives, in violation of the 
Code of Official Conduct as set forth in Clause 1 of Rule XLIII 
of the House of Representatives.

                                
