[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.