[1] Code of Ethics for Government Service ¶10, H. Con. Res. 175, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 72 Stat. pt 2, B12 (1958). Both the House and Senate concurred that all federal government employees and officeholders should follow this code.

[2] Id. at ¶ 5. See also 135 Cong. Rec. H8764 (daily ed. Nov. 16, 1989) (debate on Ethics Reform Act of 1989, quoting Paul Volcker, Chairman of the National Commission on the Public Service); United States v. Podell, 436 F. Supp. 1039, 1042 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), aff’d 572 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1978).Over the years, both the House and Senate regularly recognized the concerns that arise from Members, officers, and employees accepting gifts. Special Subcomm. on the Establishment of a Comm’n on Ethics in Gov’t, Senate Comm. on Labor and Public Welfare, 82d Cong., Ethical Standards in Government 23 (Comm. Print 1951) (“What is proper to offer to public officials, and what is it proper for them to receive? . . . Even small gratuities can be significant if they are repeated and come to be expected . . . .The difficulty comes in drawing the line between the innocent or proper and that which is designing or improper. At the moment a doubt arises as to propriety, the line should be drawn.”); House Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics, 101st Cong. Report on H.R. 3660, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (Comm Print 1989), reprinted in 135 Cong. Rec. 30740, 30742 (daily ed. Nov. 21, 1989) (hereinafter “Bipartisan Task Force Report”) (“Regardless of any actual corruption or undue influence upon a Member or employee of Congress, the receipt of gifts or favors from private interests may affect public confidence in the integrity of the individual and in the institution of the Congress. Legitimate concerns of favoritism or abuse of public position may be raised by disclosure of frequent or expensive gifts from representatives of special interests, or valuable gifts from anyone other than a relative or personal friend.”); S. Comm. on Gov’t Affairs, Congressional Gifts Reform Act, S. Rep. No. 103-255, at 3-4 (1994) (“[I]t seems appropriate to single out registered lobbyists and foreign agents for special treatment, because this category includes people who are, by definition, in the business of seeking to influence the outcome of public policy decisions. Because registered lobbyists and foreign agents are paid to influence the actions of public officials, including legislative branch officials, their gifts are uniquely susceptible to the appearance that they are intended to purchase access or influence.”).

[3] General statutory authority for the House Gift Rule comes from 5 U.S.C. § 7353. That statute gives the supervising ethics office the authority to issue rules or regulations implementing the statute. Id. at § (b)(1). The Committee and the House as a whole are the supervising ethics office for the House. Id. at (d)(1)(A). Therefore, the House votes on the Gift Rule at the beginning of every Congress in the House Rules. The current House Gift Rule can be found in House Rule 25, clause 5. All provisions of the Gift Rule are interpreted and enforced solely by the Committee. House Rule 25, cl. 5(h).

[4] The Gift Rule has gone through many iterations over the years. The first version was included in the first House Code of Official Conduct and approved in 1968 limited gifts from people who had a direct interest in legislation. That version largely remained in place until the Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics reviewed the rule and found it “often impractical, if not impossible” to determine a donor’s interest in legislation. Bipartisan Task Force Report, 135 Cong. Rec. 30742; see also House Comm’n on Admin. Review, Financial Ethics, H.R. Rep. No. 95-73, at 13-14 (1977) (expressing similar concerns and recommending changes to the Gift Rule that ultimately were not included in the following Congress’s House Rules). The subsequent Ethics Reform Act of 1989, as amended by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1992, amended the rule to instead place an annual monetary limit on many gifts, with exceptions for gifts of minimal value, gifts from relatives, personal hospitality, and “local meals,” rather than requiring a determination about the donor’s interest in legislation. See Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-194, §801(a), 103 Stat. 1716, 1771 (1989), amended by Pub. L. 102-90, §314(d), 105 Stat. 447, 469 (1991).

In 1995, the House overhauled the Gift Rule, placing new, significant limits on the gifts Members, officers, and employees may accept. H.R. Res. 250, 104th Cong. (1995) (amending House Rule 52 to add Gift Rule reforms); see also 141 Cong. Rec. H13064-95 (daily ed. Nov. 16, 1995); id. H13844-45 (daily ed. Nov. 30, 1995). The House Rules Committee cited three main reasons for the Gift Rule revisions. First, “a perception that special interest groups maintain undue influence over the legislative process, and Members of Congress are granted perquisites and privileges unavailable to average Americans” degraded the public’s trust in Congress. Second, “Congress [had] fallen behind the executive branch in the area of gift reform.” And third, the Senate had already enacted a comprehensive gift rule revision in July 1995. Comm. on Rules, Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to Provide for Gift Reform, H.R. Rep. No. 104-337, at 8 (1995). One proponent described the subtle and problematic ways that gifts from lobbyists buy access and ultimately power through building goodwill. “It can mean the difference between getting your calls returned or your letter taken seriously, and that can translate into millions, even billions of dollars, at the expense of ordinary Americans who have no lobbyists to represent them.” To Limit the Acceptance of Gifts, Meals, and Travel by Members of Congress and Congressional Staff, and for Other Purposes: Hearing on S. 885 Before the Subcomm. on Oversight of the Senate of the S. Comm. on Gov’t Affairs, 103d Cong., 5-6 (1993) (statement of Sen. Lautenberg). The House made a few changes to the Gift Rule between the 104th and 108th Congresses, including provisions addressing gifts valued below $50, perishable foods sent to House offices, and travel to charity events. See H.R. Res. 9, 106th Cong. (1999); 145 Cong. Rec. H208-211 (daily ed. Jan. 6, 1999) (adding the less than $50 limit to mirror the Senate gift rule); H.R. Res. 5, 108th Cong. (2003) (adding rules related to how to allocate perishable food and accepting travel to attend charity event).

In the 110th Congress, the House amended the Gift Rule in the wake of several public corruption investigations and prosecutions. The amendments to the Gift Rule included 1) prohibiting gifts under $50 from registered federal lobbyists, agents of a foreign principal (“foreign agent”), and the private entities that employ or retain registered federal lobbyists or foreign agents; 2) limiting involvement by, and the length of trips sponsored by, registered federal lobbyists, foreign agents, and private entities that employ or retain registered federal lobbyists or foreign agents for privately-sponsored, officially-connected travel; 3) requiring the Committee to pre-approve all privately-sponsored, officially-connected travel; 4) instructions on how to value tickets; and 5) clarifying events for which free attendance may be accepted. H.R. Res. 6, 110th Cong (2007); H.R. Res. 437, 110th Cong. (2007); see also 153 Cong. Rec. H23 (daily ed., Jan. 4, 2007) (statement of Rep. Steny H. Hoyer) (“[T]his rules package includes sweeping ethics reforms that begin to address some of the most egregious transgressions of the recent past.”).