Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]. (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 250. The reform of the gift rules for House Members and staff is a bipartisan issue and one that [[Page H 13074]] has been supported for many years by Members of all political stripes and by many citizen organizations. We have, in years past, made significant changes in our rules, but in spite of those reforms, many Members have recognized that there is still a need to continue to change how this institution does business. Mr. Speaker, I am very gratified that the persistence of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has finally paid off. His untiring efforts to bring this issue to the full House, along with the efforts of a broad bipartisan coalition of freshman and other junior Members, demonstrates that this issue does not belong to any one political party. My Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], is to be congratulated for shepherding this issue through the Rules Committee and to the floor today. I also want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], for his steadfast support for bringing this issue to the full House. And now that the House has finally come to the moment in which it can demonstrate its commitment to reform, I want to urge all of us to think carefully about how we are going to vote today. If, as we all know, there are those in the public who will never be satisfied with what we do here, there are also other Americans who understand that the men and women elected to this institution are honorable and that we are trying to do the right thing. We are here because we want to give something back to this great Nation which has given each and every one of us so much. Mr. Speaker, the House has three choices today: First, a substitute will be offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. His proposal would leave the current gift rules in place but would require extensive disclosure of any gifts received or any trips taken by Members or their staff. Mr. Burton's proposal, if I understand it correctly, would impose new disclosure requirements which will allow our constituents to decide if we are unduly influenced by lobbyists and other special interests. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Burton's heart is in the right place, but that his substitute simply does not get the job done. I would urge a no vote on this proposition. The second proposition may be offered by Speaker Gingrich if the Burton substitute does not pass. The Speaker's proposal would zero out accepting gifts. His proposal does, however, contain a number of exceptions which may or may not address the issue of how to deal with small, inexpensive gifts from constituents or other groups. That proposal is, of course, the proposition reported by the Committee on Rules and which is sponsored by a broad bipartisan coalition. This amendment to the rules of the House reduces the allowable amount of accumulated gifts from any one source from $250 to $100 per year, and prohibits the acceptance of any gift with a value exceeding $50. With certain exceptions, lobbyists are prohibited from giving gifts to Members and staff. But most importantly, this new rule would specifically bar Members from accepting reimbursement for transportation and lodging costs associated with their attendance at charity golf, tennis, and ski tournaments. This prohibition directly addresses the lifestyle issue which has caused this institution so much unneeded and unwarranted grief. This prohibition is key to the gift rule reform effort. The proposal reported by the Rules Committee is not perfect, but it is a significant improvement on the current rule. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan proposal reported from the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I will yield up to 7\1/2\ minutes to opponents of the legislation during this debate. It is not clear as to whether the opponents at this portion of the debate will be asking for the full 7\1/2\, but if they do, for purposes of control, I will yield up to 7\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, at this point I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to then gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]. (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie]. (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. DeLauro].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. FROST. All I can tell the gentleman is the restrictions in this paragraph shall not apply to the following, and then it says a contribution is defined in section 301(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 that is lawfully made under the act, the contribution for election to a State or local government office prescribed by section 301(8) (b) of the act or attendance at a fundraising sponsored by a political organization. A political convention is obviously sponsored by a political organization. The intent is not to cause problems for either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party at their national conventions.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I ask the gentleman from California, who just spoke, if he would remain at the microphone, if he would. I know that the legislation is complicated and it is hard to keep track of all the details when things move around. But the gentleman may not have been aware that there is a specific exemption in the bill for political activities. Nothing surrounding the political convention either of the Democratic Party or of the Republican Party is covered under this legislation.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the gentleman from New York only has one speaker who will close?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].