House Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction

Order Code 98-15 GOV CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web House Committee on Standards of Official Official Conduct: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction Updated July 14, 2004June 8, 2006 Mildred Amer Specialist in American National Government Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: A A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction Summary This report provides a history of the creation and evolution of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Also known as the House Ethics Committee and the Committee on Standards, it was first established as a select committee in 1966. It became a standing committee in 1967. Since that time, it has undergone two major reorganizations, first in 1989, and again in 1997. This 10-member, bipartisan committee is authorized to (1) recommend to the House of Representatives actions that would establish or enforce standards of official conduct; and (2) investigate alleged violations by House Members, officers, and employees of any law, rule, regulation, or standard of official conduct relating to their official duties. The committee may, after several stages in an investigative process, recommend any appropriate sanction, including expulsion of a Member. The majority of the committee’s work, however, is advisory and done by its Office of Advice and Education, which was established to provide information and guidance to House Members, officers, and employees on standards of conduct applicable in their official capacities. This office also conducts periodic educational briefings on standards of conduct rules and laws, and responds to requests for advisory opinions and interpretations of applicable laws, rules, and statutes. In addition, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has jurisdiction over the House Code of Official Conduct and is assigned responsibility for administering the gift, outside earned income, and financial disclosure requirements established by House rules, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. The first announced disciplinary case considered by the committee was in 1975. Since then, the committee has taken some form of public action on cases involving some 6067 other Representatives, including two Speakers of the House and a Majority Leader. The results have ranged from public acknowledgment from the Committee on Standards (or in some cases Members of the House) that it had considered, but dismissed, a complaint against a Member, to the noting of infractions not meriting sanctions, to the issuance of a of a formal, public “Letter of Reproval,” or a “Letter of Admonition” or a public admonishment from the committee, to the recommendation of censure, reprimand, or expulsion by the House. EighteenTwenty Members have left the House after court convictions were returned, after Ethics Committee inquiries were initiated, or after charges were brought by the committee, but before House action could be completed. Departure from the House ended their cases because the committee does not have jurisdiction over former Members. Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Evolution and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Changes in Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Changes in Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Disciplinary Cases9 2005 Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 List of Tables Table 1. Congressional Committee Assignments House Standards of Official Conduct Committee. 9 1997 Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1989 Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Other Jurisdictional Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Disciplinary Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 List of Tables Table 1. Congressional Committee Assignments House Standards of Official Conduct Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . 14 House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction Introduction The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was established on April 13, 1967, by the 90th Congress. It has been designated by the House of Representatives to meet the key elements of its responsibility for self-discipline authorized by Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states in part that “Each House may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” This 10-member, bipartisan committee, often referred to as the House Ethics Committee or House Standards Committee, is authorized to (1) recommend actions that would establish or enforce standards of official conduct; and (2) investigate alleged violations by House Members, officers, and employees of any law, rule, regulation, or standard of official conduct relating to their official duties.1 After several stages in an investigative process, the committee may recommend to the House any appropriate sanction, including the expulsion of a Member.2 The majority of its work, however, is advisory and done by the Office of Advice and Education, which was established within the committee in January 1990 by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194). This office is responsible for providing information and guidance to House Members, officers, and employees on standards of conduct applicable in their official capacities. The office also conducts periodic 1 The members of the committee are appointed by the leaders of their respective parties. The size of the committee was reduced from 14 to 10 on Sept. 18, 1997, with the adoption of H.Res. 168, which revised the committee’s operation and procedures. When first created, the committee had 12 Members. In the 105th Congress, the committee was not organized until Sept. 1997 because of a comprehensive review of its procedures by special task force. On Jan. 7, 1997, a Select Committee on Ethics was established to complete an investigation begun by the committee created by the 104th Congress. Most of the committee members from the 104th Congress were appointed to the new select committee, which was to cease to exist upon the final disposition of its investigation or by Jan. 21,1997. See Rep. Richard, Armey, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 142vol. 143, Jan. 7, 1997, pp. H9-H10 p. 123. 2 See “Dear Colleague” letter posted on the committee website at [http://www.house.gov/ ethics/m_Committee_work_DC_letter_3-04.htm], visited Feb. 3, 2005, for a discussion of the committee’s responsibilities. This letter can also be found at U.S. Congress, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Summary of Activities One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 108-806 (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 56-60.ethics/m_Committee_Work_DC_letter_3-04.htm], visited July 6, 2004. This letter discusses each of the committee’s responsibilities. CRS-2 educational briefings on relevant standards of conduct and responds to requests for advisory opinions and interpretations of applicable laws, rules, and statutes.3 In addition, the committee has jurisdiction over the House Code of Official Conduct and is assigned responsibility for administering the gift, outside earned income, and financial disclosure requirements established by House rules, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-521), and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194).4 Evolution and Background Prior to the creation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the first House Code of Official Conduct and financial disclosure rule in the 90th Congress (1967-1969), there was no uniform or consistent mechanism for congressional self-discipline.5 Some allegations of misconduct were investigated by the House Administration Committee, or, more often, in an ad hoc manner by special or select committees. Election disputes and charges of election fraud were also investigated by special ad hoc committees or other committee and subcommittees.6 Other allegations were considered by the House without prior committee action. The creation of the Ethics Committee responded to a need for systematizing House responses to questions of official misconduct and Members’ need for a reliable, accessible source of information about potential conflicts of interest and other ethical dilemmas that are inherent to serving in Congress. Ethics committees and standards of conduct for the House as well as the Senate had been suggested since at least the mid-1950s, but it was not until a decade later that these proposals gained sufficient support for enactment. 3 Useful information about the committee’s activities and advisory opinions can be found on its website at [http://www.house.gov/ethics]. 4 The committee periodically publishes a comprehensive Ethics Manual and issues supplementary memoranda to assist Members, officers, and employees in interpreting the various ethics laws, rules, and regulations. The appendices in this Manual contain the text of selected House rules covering the committee’s jurisdiction and procedure as well as the rules, regulations, and statutes relating to standards of conduct applicable to House Members, officers, and employees. The most recent manual was published in 1992, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Ethics Manual for Members, Officers, and Employees of the U.S. House of Representatives, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1992), 493p. For the most recent information on House rules of conduct, visit the Standard Committee’s website at [http://www.house.gov/ethics]. 5 In 1958, Congress adopted the Code of Ethics for Government Service, which articulated broad ethical guidelines for all government officers and employees, including Members of Congress and congressional staff. The Code was adopted as a concurrent resolution (H. Con.Res. 175, July 11, 1958; 72 Stat., Part 2, § B12), rather than a statute. Through the years, however, its impact has been strengthened by the House and Senate Ethics Committees, which have included it as a standard for discipline in several cases. 6 The Committee on House Administration still investigates contested and other congressional election cases, as did its predecessor. CRS-3Recent Developments During the 109th Congress, an impasse over procedural matters, including the hiring of staff, delayed the committee’s organization.5 In November 2005, the committee hired a Chief Counsel/Staff Director. On March 30, 2006, it voted to move forward with an investigation that began in the 108th Congress. On May 17, 2006, the committee announced the beginning of three new investigations.6 Also in the 109th Congress, particularly in connection with lobbying, travel, and gift reform legislation, there have been discussions and several proposals affecting the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. On June 7, 2006, the committee held an open hearing on changes in the House travel rules.7 Other recent proposals address the committee’s rules of procedure and suggest replacing the 3 Useful information about the committee’s activities and advisory opinions can be found on its website at [http://www.house.gov/ethics]. 4 The committee periodically publishes a comprehensive Ethics Manual and issues supplementary memoranda to assist Members, officers, and employees in interpreting the various ethics laws, rules, and regulations. The appendices in this Manual contain the text of selected House rules covering the committee’s jurisdiction and procedure as well as the rules, regulations, and statutes relating to standards of conduct applicable to House Members, officers, and employees. The most recent manual was published in 1992, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Ethics Manual for Members, Officers, and Employees of the U.S. House of Representatives, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1992), 493p. For the most recent information on House rules of conduct, visit the Standard Committee’s website at [http://www.house.gov/ethics]. 5 Susan Ferrechio, “Ethics Dispute Ends: Panel Ready to Hire Staff and Prepare for Investigations, “ CQ Today, July 1, 2005, p. 3; John Bresnahan and Ben Persing, “Ethics Panel Finally Ready to Hire Staff,” Roll Call, July 5, 2005, pp. 1, 13; John Bresnahan, “Ethics Staffing Slow As Panel’s Caseload Mounts,” Roll Call, Sept. 7, 2005, p. 3; and Ben Pershing, “Ethics Quickly Hits Deadlock,” Roll Call, Apr. 3, 2006, pp. 1, 18. 6 See the announcement from the chairman and ranking member posted on the committee’s website at [http://www.house.gov/ethics/Link_Other_Publications.html], visited May 30, 2006; and Jonathan Weisman, “Ethics Panel Starts 3 Probes,” Washington Post, May 18, 2006, pp. A1, A11. 7 Elana Schor, “The House Ethics Committee Solicits Input in Rare Hearing, “ The Hill, June 8, 20076, p. 4. CRS-3 committee with an ethics commission, office of public integrity, or other independent entity that could include former Members of Congress and judges.8 Evolution and Background Prior to the creation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the first House Code of Official Conduct and financial disclosure rule in the 90th Congress (1967-1969), there was no uniform or consistent mechanism for congressional self-discipline.9 Some allegations of misconduct were investigated by the House Administration Committee, or, more often, in an ad hoc manner by special or select committees. Election disputes and charges of election fraud were also investigated by special ad hoc committees or other committee and subcommittees.10 Other allegations were considered by the House without prior committee action. The creation of the Ethics Committee responded to a need for systematizing House responses to questions of official misconduct and Members’ need for a reliable, accessible source of information about potential conflicts of interest and other ethical dilemmas that are inherent to serving in Congress. Ethics committees and standards of conduct for the House as well as the Senate had been suggested since at least the mid-1950s, but it was not until a decade later that these proposals gained sufficient support for enactment. During hearings before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress in 1965, considerable testimony was presented on the ethical conduct of Members; and the need for House and Senate codes of conduct, financial disclosure regulations, and a House Ethics Committee (the Senate had created one in 1964). In its final report, the Joint Committee called for the creation of a Committee on Standards and Conduct in the House.711 In October 1966, shortly after the Joint Committee issued its report, and following publicized allegations of misconduct by former House Education and 8 See as examples: S. 2349, S. 2259, H.R. 4799, H.R. 4948, and H.R. 4988. See also CRS Report RS22034, House Ethics Rules Changes in the 109th Congress, by Mildred Amer. 9 In 1958, Congress adopted the Code of Ethics for Government Service, which articulated broad ethical guidelines for all government officers and employees, including Members of Congress and congressional staff. The Code was adopted as a concurrent resolution (H.Con.Res. 175, July 11, 1958; 72 Stat., Part 2, § B12), rather than a statute. Through the years, however, its impact has been strengthened by the House and Senate Ethics Committees, which have included it as a standard for discipline in several cases. 10 The Committee on House Administration still investigates contested and other congressional election cases, as did its predecessor. 11 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of Congress, final report pursuant to S.Res. 2, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 89-1414 (Washington: GPO, 1966), p. 48. CRS-4 Labor Committee Chairman Adam Clayton Powell, the House created the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct (H.Res. 1013).812 As reported, H.Res. 1013 granted the select committee powers similar to those ultimately given the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.9 However, the resolution 13 The resolution was amended on the floor, however, and the select committee’s powers were limited to (1) recommending additional House rules or regulations necessary to insure proper standards of conduct by House Members, officers, and employees; and (2) reporting violations of law, by majority vote, to the proper federal and state authorities. Like the current committee, the select committee'’s membership was to be bipartisan. Because of the brevity of the select committee’s existence (October 1966 to January 1967), the members of the committee concluded that they could not “prudently recommend changes in existing provisions of law or recommend new ones at this time.”1014 Instead, they recommended that (1) the Committee be continued as a select committee in the 90th Congress; (2) legislation introduced in the 90th Congress on standards and conduct should be referred to the select committee; and (3) Members of the House should be asked for suggested changes in existing statutes. Included in the report was a draft resolution for continuation of the select committee. During the first session of the 90th Congress, numerous resolutions were introduced to provide for the establishment of a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. The House Rules Committee held hearings on these proposals early in 1967, and subsequently reported H.Res. 418, which provided for the creation of a standing committee to be known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.11 7 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of Congress, final report pursuant to S.Res. 2, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 89-1414 (Washington: GPO, 1966), p. 48. 815 H.Res. 418, which was adopted on April 13, 1967, established a 12-member, bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.16 Its sole function was to recommend changes in laws, rules, and regulations that were needed to establish and enforce House standards of official conduct. The first members of the committee were appointed shortly thereafter. 12 Congressional Record, vol. 112, Oct. 19, 1966, pp. 27713-27730. 913 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Creating a Select Committee on Standards and and Conduct, report to accompany H.Res. 1013, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 89-2012 (Washington: GPO, 1966), 1 p. 101p. 14 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Report Under the Authority of H.Res. 1013, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 89-2338 (Washington: GPO, 1966), 10p. 1115 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Establishment of a Standing Committee to be (continued...) CRS-4 H.Res. 418, which was adopted on April 13, 1967, established a 12-member, bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.12 Its sole function was to recommend changes in laws, rules, and regulations that were needed to establish and enforce House standards of official conduct. The first members of the committee were appointed shortly thereafter.Known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.Res. 418, 90th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 90-178 (Washington: GPO, 1967), 1p. 16 Congressional Record, vol. 113, April 13, 1967, pp. 9426-9448. CRS-5 The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct held its first hearings in the summer of 1967.1317 Subsequently, it issued a report recommending: ! ! continuation of the committee as a select committee; ! ! changes in the committee'’s jurisdiction and powers; ! ! creation of a Code of Official Conduct and financial disclosure rules for for Members, officers, and employees of the House; ! ! establishment of standardized controls by the House Administration Committee over committees using counterpart funds (foreign currencies held by U.S. embassies that can only be spent in the country of origin); ! ! a prompt review of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (reporting of campaign campaign expenditures) by the House; and ! ! compliance by House candidates with applicable provisions of the Code of Official Conduct.14 18 Pursuant to this report, the House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1099, which contained many of these recommendations.1519 That resolution was amended and adopted by the House on April 3, 1968.1620 It provided for (1) continuation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as a permanent standing House committee; (2) enumeration of the committee’s jurisdiction and powers; (3) the first 11 (...continued) Known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.Res. 418, 90th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 90-178 (Washington: GPO, 1967), 1p. 12 Congressional Record, vol. 113, April 13, 1967, pp. 9426-9448. 13 House Code of Official Conduct (Rule XLIII); and (4) the first financial disclosure requirements for Members, officers, and designated employees (Rule XLIV).21 Jurisdiction H.Res.1099 authorized the committee to (1) recommend to the House legislative or administrative actions deemed necessary for establishing or enforcing standards of conduct; (2) investigate allegations of violations of the Code of Official Conduct 17 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Standards of Official Conduct, hearings, 90th Cong., 1st sess., Aug. 16-17, 23-24, 1967, and Sept. 14, 21, 27, 1967 (Washington: GPO, 1967), 310p. 1418 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Code of Conduct for Members and Employees of the House, report under the authority of H.Res. 418, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 90-1176 (Washington: GPO, 1968), 45p. 15 19 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Amending H.Res. 418, 90th Congress, to Continue the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as a Permanent Standing Committee of the House of Representatives, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.Res. 1099, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 90-1248 (Washington: GPO, 1968), 1p. 1620 21 Congressional Record, vol. 114, April 3, 1968, pp. 8776-8812. CRS-5 House Code of Official Conduct (Rule XLIII); and (4) the first financial disclosure requirements for Members, officers, and designated employees (Rule XLIV).17 Jurisdiction H.Res. 1099 authorized the committee to (1) recommend to the House legislative or administrative actions deemed necessary for establishing or enforcing standards of conduct; (2) investigate allegations of violations of the Code of Official Conduct Apr. 3, 1968, pp. 8776-8812. Only a portion of the disclosures required by this two-part rule was to be available to the public. CRS-6 or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to Members, officers, and employees in the performance of official duties, and after notice and a hearing, recommend to the House appropriate action; (3) report to appropriate state and federal authorities, subject to House approval, evidence of violations of law by Members, officers, and employees in the performance of official duties;1822 and (4) issue and publish advisory opinions for the guidance of Members, officers, and employees. The committee was also given jurisdiction over measures relating to the House Code of Official Conduct and financial disclosure. In addition, H.Res. 1099 also imposed imposed several limitations on the Ethics Committee. These requirementslimits, except where noted, are still in effect in House Rule XXI, clause 4(e3(a). They stipulate that ! there must be an affirmative vote of seven out of 12 committee members for the issuance of any report, resolution, recommendation, or advisory opinion relating to the official conduct of a Member, officer, or employee or the investigation of such conduct;19 ! 23 ! investigations, other than those initiated by the committee, can be undertaken undertaken only upon receipt of a complaint, in writing and under oath, from a Member of the House, or an individual not a Member if the committee finds that such complaint has been submitted by the individual to no fewer than three Members who have refused in writing to transmit the complaint to the committee;20 17 Only a portion of the disclosures required by this two-part rule was to be available to the public. 18 committee;24 ! investigations of alleged violations of any law, rule, etc., that was not in effect at the time of the alleged violation are prohibited;25 and 22 With the adoption of H.Res. 168 (105th Cong., 1st sess.) on Sept. 18, 1997, the House voted voted to permit an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the full Standards Committee or the approval approval of the House for the referral of evidence of violations of law to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Previously, this referral authority had been granted only to the Select Committee on Ethics for one year (1966) and later to only the full House, although reformers for many years had advocated giving it back to the to the committee. 19 23 This seven Member requirement was replaced in 1974 with “an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the committee” to accommodate any subsequent changes in the committee’s size. In 1991, pursuant to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the membership was increased to 14. However, in 1997, with the adoption of the recommendation of the Ethics Reform Task Force (H.Res. 168), the membership was reduced to 10. 2024 H.Res. 168, adopted Sept. 18, 1997, changed the requirements for the filing of complaints by non-Members to require that such complaints be transmitted by a Member who “certifies (continued...) CRS-6 ! investigations of alleged violations of any law, rule, etc., that was not in effect at the time of the alleged violation are prohibited;21 and ! in writing to the committee that he or she believes the information is submitted in good faith and warrants the review and consideration of the Committee.” 25 This rule was expanded by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 to include a statute of limitations of three previous Congresses for investigations of alleged violations. CRS-7 ! members of the committee are not eligible to participate in any committee committee proceeding relating to their official conduct.22 26 H.Res. 1099 also empowered the committee to hold hearings, receive testimony, and issue subpoenas in the course of conducting an investigation. Changes in Jurisdiction On July 8, 1970, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was given jurisdiction over lobbying activities as well as those involving the raising, reporting, and use of campaign funds.2327 Subsequently, pursuant to the adoption of the House rules for the 94th Congress (1975-1977), jurisdiction over campaign contributions was transferred to the House Administration Committee.2428 With the adoption of the House rules for the 95th Congress (1977-1979), jurisdiction25jurisdiction29 over lobbying was transferred to the House Judiciary Committee, and its jurisdiction over measures relating to financial disclosure was transferred to the House Rules Committee.2630 On March 2, 1977, in the 95th Congress, the House adopted H.Res. 287, which contained several amendments and additions to the House rules of conduct.2731 Included were the first House public financial disclosure rule and limits on outside earned income and unofficial office accounts as well as limitations on gifts, the franking privilege, and foreign travel. Pursuant to H.Res. 287, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct assumed jurisdiction over these additional rules of conduct and was authorized to maintain the public financial disclosure reports filed by Members, officers, and designated employees.28 In addition, a Select Committee 20 (...continued) in writing to the committee that he or she believes the information is submitted in good faith and warrants the review and consideration of the Committee.” 21 This rule was expanded by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 to include a statute of limitations of three previous Congresses for investigations of alleged violations. 2232 In addition, a Select Committee on Ethics, chaired by Representative Richardson Preyer (D-NC), was established to assist in the implementation of the new rules. On July 14, 1977, a resolution establishing the House Intelligence Committee authorized the Committee on Standards to investigate any unauthorized disclosure 26 Provisions were made for the Speaker to replace the Member for the duration of any such case. In 1977, the House rules were amended to provide also a mechanism for a committee member to disqualify himself/herself from participating in an investigation in which he/she states in writing and under oath that he/she cannot render an impartial decision. 2327 Congressional Record, vol. 116, July 8, 1970, pp. 23136-23141. 2428 Congressional Record, vol. 121, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20. 2529 Congressional Record, vol. 123, Mar. 9, 1977, pp. 6811-6817. 2630 Congressional Record, vol. 123, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 53. Note, the committee still has substantive jurisdiction over financial disclosure pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-521). 2731 32 Congressional Record, vol. 123, Mar. 2, 1977, pp. 5885-5953. 28 In 1989, the office of the Clerk of the House became the repository for House public (continued...) CRS-7 on Ethics, chaired by Representative Richardson Preyer (D-NC), was established to assist in the implementation of the new rules. On July 14, 1977, a resolution establishing the House Intelligence Committee authorized the Committee on Standards to investigate any unauthorized disclosurefinancial disclosure reports. CRS-8 of intelligence or intelligence-related information by a House Member, officer, or employee and report to the House on any substantiated allegations.2933 In August 1977, with the enactment of P.L. 95-105, which amended the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, the committee was designated as the “employing agency” for the House and authorized to issue regulations governing the acceptance by House Members and personnel of gifts, trips, and decorations from foreign governments. In 1978, government-wide public financial disclosure requirements were mandated with the enactment of the Ethics in Government Act (P.L. 95-521). Subsequently, with the adoption of the House rules for the 96th Congress (19791981), the provisions of the House financial disclosure rule were replaced by those of the Ethics Act and incorporated into House rules.3034 This act delegated to the Committee on Standards review, interpretation, and compliance responsibilities for the public financial disclosure reports that henceforth were to be filed with the Clerk of the House. Subsequently, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194), which amended the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, included a variety of ethics and pay reforms for the three branches of government that further expanded the responsibilities of the House Committee on Standards.3135 These included enforcement of the act’s ban on honoraria, limits on outside earned income, and restrictions on the acceptance of gifts. The committee was also given the responsibility for consideration of any requests for a written waiver of the limits imposed by the House gift ban rule. On November 16, 1995, the House passed H.Res. 250 and adopted a new rule banning most gifts to Members, officers, and employees.3236 On the opening day of the 106th Congress, the House amended its gift rule (Rule XXVI) to conform to the Senate gift rule which has been in effect since 1996.3337 The amended rule allows 28 (...continued) financial disclosure reports. 29 Members, officers, and employees of the House to accept any gift of $50 or less in a calendar year or a gift with a cumulative value of $100 from any one source in a calendar year. Gifts of $10 or less do not count towards the $100 annual limit. 33 Congressional Record, vol. 123, July 14, 1977, pp. 22932-22949. 3034 Congressional Record, vol. 125, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 9. 3135 The Ethics Reform Act, which passed the House on Nov.November 16, 1989, and was signed into into law (P.L. 101-194) on Nov.November, 30, 1989, also mandated certain changes in the committee’s procedures, infra. See U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics on H.R. 3360, committee print, 101st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1989), pp. 9-11, 16-21. See also Congressional Record, vol. 135, Nov. 16, 1989, pp. 29469-29509. 322946929509. 36 37 Congressional Record, vol. 141, Nov. 16, 1995, pp. 33419-33441. 33 Rep. James Hansen, “House Gift Rule Amendment,” Congressional Record, daily edition, (continued...) CRS-8 Members, officers, and employees of the House to accept any gift of $50 or less in a calendar year or a gift with a cumulative value of $100 from any one source in a calendar year. Gifts of $10 or less do not count towards the $100 annual limit. All provisions of the gift rule are interpreted and enforced by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which is authorized to issue guidance on any matter contained in the rule. Changes in Procedures Since the creation of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in 1967, major changes in its composition and rules of procedure have occurred, in 1989 and 1997.34 On September 18, 1997, after some seven months of study, the House adopted, with amendments, the recommendations of the Ethics Reform Task Force, which had been established in February 1997.35 The 10-member task force was mandated to review the existing House ethics process and recommend reforms of that process.36 It was chaired by Representative Bob Livingston (R-LA) and Representative Ben Cardin (D-MD). At the same time that the House approved the establishment of the task force on February 12, it also approved a 65-day moratorium on the filing of new ethics complaints to enable the Task Force to conduct its work “in a climate free from specific questions of ethical propriety.”37 That moratorium was extended several times prior to adoption of the task force’s recommendations. During the course of its deliberations, the task force conducted several days of hearings, the majority of which were held in closed session. Testimony was received from experts in the ethics process, attorneys who had represented respondents before the House Ethics Committee, and Members of the House, some of whom had served on the Ethics Committee. 33 (...continued) vol. 145, Jan. 6, 1999, pp. H208-H211. 34vol. 145, Jan. 6, 1999, pp. 237-240. CRS-9 All provisions of the gift rule are interpreted and enforced by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which is authorized to issue guidance on any matter contained in the rule. Changes in Procedures 2005 Changes. On January 4, 2005, when the House adopted H.Res. 5, its rules for the 105th Congress, it included several provisions affecting the committee’s procedures in handling allegations against a House Member, officer, or employee as well as procedures to be followed when the conduct of Member, officer, or employee might be referenced in the course of an investigation against someone else.38 Subsequently, on April 27, 2005, the changes were dropped when the House deleted all amendments to the committee’s procedures that had been adopted earlier in the year.39 Other major changes in the composition and rules of procedure of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct occurred in 1989 and 1997.40 1997 Changes. On September 18, 1997, after some seven months of study, the House adopted, with amendments, the recommendations of the Ethics Reform Task Force, which had been established in February 1997.41 The 10-member task force was mandated to review the existing House ethics process and recommend reforms of that process.42 It was chaired by Representatives Bob Livingston (R-LA) and Ben Cardin (D-MD). At the same time that the House approved the establishment of the task force on February 12, it also approved a 65-day moratorium on the filing of new ethics complaints to enable the Task Force to conduct its work 38 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, Jan. 4, 2005, pp. H7H31. 39 “Amending the Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, Apr. 27, 2005, pp. H2616-H2626. See also CRS Report RS22034, House Ethics Rules Changes in the 109th Congress, by Mildred Amer. 40 During the 103rd Congress, the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress held two hearings on reform of the congressional ethics process. The most discussed topics included streamlining the ethics process and including non-Members as part of that process. No action, however, was taken on the any of the committee’s recommendations relating the ethics process. See U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the Congress, Final Report of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 103rd Cong.,1st sess., S.Rept. 103-215, vol. II (Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 123129; and U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of Congress, Final Report of the House Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 103rd Cong.,1st sess., H.Rept. 103-413, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 3-4. 35 41 “Implementing the Recommendations of Bipartisan House Ethics Task Force,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, Sept. 18, 1997, pp. H7544-H7573. 3619302-19340. 42 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, Feb. 12, 1997, pp. H456-H457. 37 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, Feb. 12, 1997, p. H456. CRS-92058-2059. CRS-10 “in a climate free from specific questions of ethical propriety.”43 That moratorium was extended several times prior to adoption of the task force’s recommendations. During the course of its deliberations, the task force conducted several days of hearings, the majority of which were held in closed session. Testimony was received from experts in the ethics process, attorneys who had represented respondents before the House Ethics Committee, and Members of the House, some of whom had served on the Ethics Committee. The major changes in the ethics process adopted by the House on September 18, 1997, include: ! 1997, included 43 ! changing the way non-Members file complaints with the committee by by requiring them to have a Member of the House certify in writing that the information is submitted in good faith and warrants consideration by the committee;38 ! 44 ! decreasing the size of the committee from 14 members to 10; ! ! establishing a 20-person pool of Members (10 from each party) to supplement supplement the work of the Ethics Committee as potential appointees to investigative subcommittees that might be established by the committee; 39 ! 45 ! requiring the chairman and ranking member of the committee to determine determine within 14 calendar days or five legislative days, which ever comes first, if the information offered as a complaint meets the committee’s requirements;40 ! 46 ! allowing an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the committee committee or approval of the full House to refer evidence of law violations disclosed in a committee investigation to the appropriate state or federal law enforcement authorities;41 ! providing for a nonpartisan, professional Ethics Committee staff; ! allowing the ranking member to have an equal opportunity to place matters on the committee’s agenda; ! decreasing the maximum service on the committee from six years to four years during any three successive Congresses; and ! requiring at least four members to be rotated off the committee at the end of each Congress. These changes took effect in the 105th Congress. Moreover, after the members of the committee were appointed for the 105th Congress in September 1997, they 38 state or federal law enforcement authorities;47 Congressional Record, vol. 143, Feb. 12, 1997, p. 2059. 44 This procedure replaces the requirement that non-Members could file complaints with the Ethics Committee only after they had submitted allegations to at least three House Members who had refused in writing to transmit the complaint to the committee. 3945 The first pool of 20 Members selected to serve on investigative committees of the Standards Committee was appointed on Nov. 13, 1997. See The Speaker Pro Tempore [Rep. Ray La Hood], “List of Republican and Democratic Members Selected to Serve As Pool Members‘Pool’ For Purposed Relating To The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, Nov. 13, 1997, p. H10947-H1094826569. The House leadership has appointed a 20-person pool of Members in each Congress since then. 40 41 46 47 Previously, there was no specific time limit for this determination. With the exception of a brief period in 1966, previously only a vote by the full House permitted referrals of possible violations of law to the appropriate authorities. CRS-10 voted to carry over three pending cases from the 104th Congress and apply the new procedures to each of those cases. When the House adopted its rules for the 106th Congress, it voted to eliminate the rule requiring four members of the Standards Committee to rotate off the committee every Congress. The House also returned the committee’s service requirement to what it had been after the adoption of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (no more than three Congresses in any period of five successive Congresses.)42 Prior to 1997, the most far-reaching changes in the committee’s responsibilities and procedures followed the adoption of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.43 That act established the Office of Advice and Education, effective January 1, 1990. This office is part of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, but separate from its enforcement functions. Its staff provides guidance and recommendations to Members, officers, and employees of the House on standards of conduct applicable to their official duties. Other changes implemented by the 1989 act that are still applicable include: ! “bifurcation” (separation) within the committee of its investigative and adjudicative functions;44 ! a requirement that the committee report to the House on any case it has voted to investigate and that any Letter of Reproval or other committee administrative action may be issued only as part of a final report to the House; ! a statute of limitation prohibiting the committee from initiating or undertaking an investigation of alleged violations occurring prior to the third previous Congress unless they are related to a continuous course of conduct in recent years; and ! a guarantee that any Member who is the respondent in any Ethics Committee investigation may be accompanied by one counsel on the House floor during consideration of his/her case. The act also increased the size of the committee’s membership from 12 to 14 and implemented a time limit of committee service (no more than three out of any five consecutive Congresses). However, these changes were superceded by the new reforms in 1997. Other changes in the committee’s procedures over the last 30 years that remain in effect include the following: (1) on January 3, 1975, at the commencement of the 94th Congress, pursuant to the adoption of the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, the committee rules were changed to permit a majority vote (instead of 10 of the then-12 members) to approve committee reports, recommendations, advisory 42 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 145, Jan. 6, 1999, p. H14. 43 Congressional Record, vol. 135, Nov. 16, 1989, pp. 29469-29509. 44 Bifurcation has thus far been implemented in six committee investigations. CRS-11 opinions, and investigations;45 (2) on January 4, 1977, the House adopted a rule permitting a member of the committee to disqualify himself/herself from participating in an investigation upon submission of an affidavit of disqualification in writing and under oath;46 and (3) on January 15, 1979, House rules were amended to prohibit information, testimony, and the contents of a complaint or note of its filing from being publicly disclosed unless specifically authorized by the full committee.47 Disciplinary Cases4811 ! providing for a nonpartisan, professional Ethics Committee staff; ! allowing the ranking member to have an equal opportunity to place matters on the committee’s agenda; and ! decreasing the maximum service on the committee from six years to four years during any three successive Congresses and requiring at least four members to be rotated off the committee at the end of each Congress.48 These changes took effect in the 105th Congress. Moreover, after the members of the committee were appointed for the 105th Congress in September 1997, they voted to carry over three pending cases from the 104th Congress and apply the new procedures to each of those cases. 1989 Changes. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194) contained provisions affecting the three branches of government and also mandated changes in the House Ethics Committee.49 It established the Office of Advice and Education, effective January 1, 1990. This office is part of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, but separate from its enforcement functions. Its staff provides guidance and recommendations to Members, officers, and employees of the House on standards of conduct applicable to their official duties. Other changes implemented by the 1989 act that are still applicable include ! “bifurcation” (separation) within the committee of its investigative and adjudicative functions;50 ! a requirement that the committee report to the House on any case it has voted to investigate and that any Letter of Reproval or other committee administrative action may be issued only as part of a final report to the House; ! a statute of limitation prohibiting the committee from initiating or undertaking an investigation of alleged violations occurring prior to the third previous Congress unless they are related to a continuous course of conduct in recent years; 48 When the House adopted its rules for the 106th Congress (1999-2001), it changed the committee service rule and also voted to eliminate the rule requiring four members of the Standards Committee to rotate off the committee every Congress. This action returned the committee’s service requirement to what it had been after the adoption of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (no more than three Congresses in any period of five successive Congresses). See Congressional Record, vol. 145, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 54. 49 Congressional Record, vol. 135, Nov. 16, 1989, pp. 29469-29509. 50 Bifurcation has thus far been implemented in seven committee investigations. CRS-12 ! a guarantee that any Member who is the respondent in any Ethics Committee investigation may be accompanied by one counsel on the House floor during consideration of his/her case; and ! a time limit of committee service of no more than three out of any five consecutive Congresses. The act also increased the size of the committee’s membership from 12 to 14 That change, however, was superceded by the 1997 reforms that reduced the size of the committee from 14 to10 members. Other Jurisdictional Changes. Changes in the committee’s procedures over the last 30 years that remain in effect include the following: (1) on January 3, 1975, at the commencement of the 94th Congress, pursuant to the adoption of the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, the committee rules were changed to permit a majority vote (instead of 10 of the then-12 members) to approve committee reports, recommendations, advisory opinions, and investigations;51 (2) on January 4, 1977, the House adopted a rule permitting a member of the committee to disqualify himself/herself from participating in an investigation upon submission of an affidavit of disqualification in writing and under oath;52 and (3) on January 15, 1979, House rules were amended to prohibit information, testimony, and the contents of a complaint or note of its filing from being publicly disclosed unless specifically authorized by the full committee.53 Disciplinary Cases54 The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has operated cautiously through the years in exercising its disciplinary authority and responsibilities. For example, the committee is careful not to discuss publicly allegations received and those under review before determining their merit or deciding to begin a preliminary inquiry. Committee rules prohibit the chairman and ranking member from making public statements about matters before the Ethics Committee unless authorized to do so by the committee, and prohibit members and staff from disclosing any evidence relating to an ongoing investigation unless authorized by the committee. While preserving the authority of the full committee, the ethics reforms adopted September 18, 1997, grant discretion, when appropriate, to the chairman and ranking member to make public statements about matters before the committee.49 The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has several options at the conclusion of any formal investigation. It may recommend no further House action, issue a “Letter of Reproval” without recommending action by the full House, or recommend one or more sanctions if it determines a rules violation has occurred.50 The sanctions that may be recommended include expulsion, censure, or reprimand; a fine, 55 51 Congressional Record, vol. 120, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470. 52 Congressional Record, vol. 123, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 53. 53 Congressional Record, vol. 125, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 8. 54 Visit [http://www.house.gov/ethics/Historical_Chart_Final_Version.htm], for a historical summary of cases provided by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. 55 For example, it may be appropriate to respond to unauthorized press accounts of investigations or to respond to misinformation. See U.S. Congress, House Ethics Reform Task Force, Report of the Ethics Reform Task Force on H.Res. 168, committee print, 105th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 11-12. CRS-13 As granted by House Rules, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has several options at the conclusion of any formal investigation. It may recommend no further House action, issue a “Letter of Reproval”56 or a “Letter of Admonition”57 without recommending action by the full House, or recommend one or more sanctions if it determines a rules violation has occurred. The sanctions that may be recommended include expulsion, censure, reprimand or admonishment;58 a fine, denial or limitation of any right, privilege, or immunity of the Member that is permitted under the Constitution; or any other sanction deemed appropriate by the 45 Congressional Record, vol. 120, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470. 46 Congressional Record, vol. 123, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 53. 47 Congressional Record, vol. 125, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 8. 48 A historical summary of all House ethics cases is available upon request from the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Room HT-2, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC 20515 (202-225-7103). 49 For example, it may be appropriate to respond to unauthorized press accounts of investigations or to respond to misinformation. See U.S. Congress, House Ethics Reform Task Force, Report of the Ethics Reform Task Force on H.Res. 168, committee print, 105th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 11-12. 50 A public Letter of Reproval is a sanction created by the committee and first used in 1987. It is an expression by the committee that the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee was improper but that no further action is required by the House. Committee rules implemented following the adoption of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 mandate that any Letter of Reproval or other committee administrative action may only be issued as a final report to the House. The committee has issued five public “Letters of Reproval.” CRS-12 Ethics Committee.51 Typically, the House has supported the committee’s recommendations, although it is not required to do so. In two instances, the House has changed a reprimand to a censure and in once instance, a censure to a reprimand. Since its inception, published accounts have indicated that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has taken some form of action on cases involving some 61 Representatives, including two Speakers of the House.52 Its actions have ranged from public acknowledgment that it is considering the merits of a complaint against a Member, to the dismissal of complaint, to the recommendation of censure or expulsion of a Member.53 Four Members of the House have been censured, and two Ethics Committee.59 Typically, the House has supported the committee’s recommendations, although it is not required to do so. In two instances, the House has changed a reprimand to a censure and in once instance, a censure to a reprimand. Since its inception, published accounts have indicated that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has taken some form of action on cases involving some 68 Representatives, including two Speakers of the House and a Majority Leader60 Its actions have ranged from public acknowledgment that it is considering 56 A public Letter of Reproval is a sanction created by the committee and and first used in 1987. It is an administrative action authorized under the rules of the House and issued as part of a public report from the committee after a formal investigation. It is an expression by the committee that the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee was improper but that no further action is required by the House. Committee rules implemented following the adoption of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 mandate that any Letter of Reproval or other committee administrative action may only be issued as a final report to the House. The committee has issued five public “Letters of Reproval.” 57 The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has resolved several complaints by means of a letter to a respondent without a formal investigation. According to the committee, “In the past such letters have not been formally termed ‘letters of admonition,’ but this term accurately describes the substance of these letters.” Unlike a Letter of Reproval, a Letter of Admonishment is not authorized under House rules. Such a letter was sent to a Member of the House in 2004. See [http://www.house.gov/ethics/ Delay_memo.htm], p. 2, and U.S. Congress, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Summary of Activities One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., pp. 62-68. 58 The first admonishments from Committee on Standards of Official Conduct came in 2004 at the conclusion of a formal investigation of allegation related to voting on the Medicare, Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. In its report, which did not require full House action, the investigative subcommittee noted that “It is the intention of this investigative subcommittee that publication of this report will serve as a public admonishment of … [the three Members under investigation] regarding their conduct in this matter.” See U.S. Congress, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare, Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, report from the Investigative Subcommittee, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 108-722 (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 44. 59 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Ethics Manual, p. 11. See also CRS Report RL31382, Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives, by Jack Maskell. 60 This number is an approximation based on announcements by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or House Members who have been the subject of any formal or informal inquiry. See U.S. Congress, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Summary of (continued...) CRS-14 the merits of a complaint against a Member, to the dismissal of complaint, to the recommendation of censure or expulsion of a Member to the other punishments discussed above.61 Four Members of the House have been censured, and two expelled following investigations by the committee. The first announced disciplinary case considered by the committee was in 1975. After completing its inquiry on this matter in 1976, the committee recommended and the House concurred in the reprimand of a Member for financial wrongdoing. This was the first reprimand of a Member of the House, a sanction now viewed as less severe than a censure. Adoption by the House of the committee’s report recommending a reprimand constitutes that punishment, while the censure of a Member involves the Speaker reading the committee’s finding and censuring the Member, who is required to stand in the well of the House. Since 1976, seven other Members have been reprimanded. The committee has also noted infractions not meriting sanctions for 10 Members. EighteenTwenty Members of the House have left after court convictions, after inquiries were initiated by the committee, or after charges were brought by the committee but before House action could be completed. In each case, the Members'’ departure has ended their cases because the Ethics Committee does not have jurisdiction over former Members. In addition, in the 98th Congress, the committee conducted an investigation of alleged improper alterations of House documents. In the 99th Congress, it conducted an investigation of allegations of improper political solicitations. No Members of the House were implicated in these cases. In the 102nd Congress, the Ethics Committee considered allegations of impropriety involving the “bank” of the House of Representatives and found 325 current/former Members had overdrafts during the 39-month period of review, but no further action was taken by the House in the “bank” matter. Also in the 102nd Congress, on August 11, 1992, the committee formed a task force to review evidence to determine the necessity of an investigation of the operations of the House post 51 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Ethics Manual, p. 11. See also CRS Report RL31382, Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives, by Jack Maskell. 52 This number is an approximation based on announcements by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or House Members who have been the subject of any formal or informal inquiry. 53 See CRS Report RL30764, History of Congressional Ethics Enforcement, by Mildred Amer. CRS-13 office. The committee deferred any action in the post office matter at the request of the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice has prosecuted some Members and former Members of the House as a result of its investigations into the House “bank” and post office. 60 (...continued) Activities One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2004) pp. 22, 57. 61 See CRS Report RL30764, History of Congressional Ethics Enforcement, by Mildred Amer. CRS-15 CRS-14 Table 1. Congressional Committee Assignments House Standards of Official Conduct Committee Member Party State District Began Assignment Ended Assignment 90th Congress (1967-1969) Price, C. Melvin D IL 24th May 1, 1967 January 2, 1969 Teague, Olin E. D TX 6th May 1, 1967 January 2, 1969 Evins, Joseph L. D TN 4th May 1, 1967 January 2, 1969 Abbitt, Watkins M. D VA 4th May 1, 1967 January 2, 1969 Aspinall, Wayne N. D CO 4th May 1, 1967 January 2, 1969 Kelly, Edna F. D NY 12th May 1, 1967 January 2, 1969 Halleck, Charles A. R IN 2nd May 1, 1967 January 2, 1969 Arends, Leslie C. R IL 17th May 1, 1967 January 2, 1969 Betts, Jackson E. R OH 8th May 1, 1967 January 2, 1969 Stafford, Robert T. R VT ALALa May 1, 1967 January 2, 1969 Quillen, James H. R TN 1st May 1, 1967 January 2, 1969 Williams, Lawrence G. R PA 7th May 1, 1967 January 2, 1969 91st Congress (1969-1971) Price, C. Melvin D IL 24th January 29, 1969 January 2, 1971 Teague, Olin E. D TX 6th January 29, 1969 January 2, 1971 Abbitt, Watkins M. D VA 4th January 29, 1969 January 2, 1971 Aspinall, Wayne N. D CO 4th January 29, 1969 January 2, 1971 Hebert, F. Edward D LA 1st January 29, 1969 January 2, 1971 Holifield, Chet D CA 19th January 29, 1969 January 2, 1971 Arends, Leslie C. R IL 17th January 29, 1969 July 24, 1969 Betts, Jackson E. R OH 8th January 29, 1969 January 2, 1971 Stafford, Robert T. R VT ALALa January 29, 1969 January 2, 1971 Quillen, James H. R TN 1st January 29, 1969 January 2, 1971 Williams, Lawrence G. R PA 7th January 29, 1969 January 2, 1971 Hutchinson, Edward R MI 4th January 29, 1969 January 2, 1971 Reid, Charlotte T. R IL 15th October 7, 1969 January 2, 1971 CRS-1516 Member Party State District Began Assignment Ended Assignment 92nd Congress (1971-1973) Price, C. Melvin D IL 24th February 4, 1971 January 2, 1973 Teague, Olin E. D TX 6th February 4, 1971 January 2, 1973 Abbitt, Watkins M. D VA 4th February 4, 1971 January 2, 1973 Aspinall, Wayne N. D CO 4th February 4, 1971 January 2, 1973 Hebert, F. Edward D LA 1st February 4, 1971 January 2, 1973 Holifield, Chet D CA 19th February 4, 1971 January 2, 1973 Betts, Jackson E. R OH 8th February 4, 1971 January 2, 1973 Stafford, Robert T. R VT ALALa February 4, 1971 September 16, 1971 Quillen, James H. R TN 1st February 4, 1971 January 2, 1973 Williams, Lawrence G. R PA 7th February 4, 1971 January 2, 1973 Hutchinson, Edward R MI 4th February 4, 1971 January 2, 1973 Reid, Charlotte T. R IL 15th February 4, 1971 October 7, 1971 King, Carleton J. R NY 30th October 27, 1971 January 2, 1973 Spence, Floyd D. R SC 2nd October 27, 1971 January 2, 1973 93rd Congress (1973-1975) Price, C. Melvin D IL 23rd January 24, 1973 January 2, 1975 Teague, Olin E. D TX 6th January 24, 1973 January 2, 1975 Hebert, F. Edward D LA 1st January 24, 1973 January 2, 1975 Holifield, Chet D CA 19th January 24, 1973 December 31, 1974 Flynt, John James Jr. D GA 6th January 24, 1973 January 2, 1975 Foley, Thomas S. D WA 5th January 24, 1973 January 2, 1975 Quillen, James H. R TN 1st January 24, 1973 January 2, 1975 Williams, Lawrence G. R PA 7th January 24, 1973 January 2, 1975 Hutchinson, Edward R MI 4th January 24, 1973 January 2, 1975 King, Carleton J. R NY 29th January 24, 1973 December 31, 1974 Spence, Floyd D. R SC 2nd January 24, 1973 January 2, 1975 Hunt, John E. R NJ 1st January 24, 1973 January 2, 1975 CRS-1617 Member Party State District Began Assignment Ended Assignment 94th Congress (1975-1977) Price, C. Melvin D IL 23rd January 20, 1975 January 2, 1977 Teague, Olin E. D TX 6th January 20, 1975 January 2, 1977 Hebert, F. Edward D LA 1st January 20, 1975 January 2, 1977 Flynt, John James Jr. D GA 6th January 20, 1975 January 2, 1977 Foley, Thomas S. D WA 5th January 20, 1975 January 2, 1977 Bennett, Charles E. D FL 3rd January 20, 1975 January 2, 1977 Spence, Floyd D. R SC 2nd January 28, 1975 January 2, 1977 Quillen, James H. R TN 1st January 28, 1975 January 2, 1977 Hutchinson, Edward R MI 4th January 28, 1975 January 2, 1977 Quie, Albert H. R MN 1st January 28, 1975 January 2, 1977 Mitchell, Donald J. R NY 31st January 28, 1975 January 2, 1977 Cochran, Thad R MS 4th January 28, 1975 January 2, 1977 95th Congress (1977-1979) Flynt, John James Jr. D GA 6th January 19, 1977 January 2, 1979 Teague, Olin E. D TX 6th January 19, 1977 December 31, 1978 Bennett, Charles E D FL 3rd January 19, 1977 January 2, 1979 Hamilton, Lee H. D IN 9th January 19, 1977 January 2, 1979 Preyer, L. Richardson D NC 6th January 19, 1977 January 2, 1979 Flowers, Walter D AL 7th January 19, 1977 January 2, 1979 Spence, Floyd D. R SC 2nd January 19, 1977 January 2, 1979 Quillen, James H. R TN 1st January 19, 1977 January 2, 1979 Quie, Albert H. R MN 1st January 19, 1977 January 2, 1979 Cochran, Thad R MS 4th January 19, 1977 December 26, 1978 Fenwick, Millicent H. R NJ 5th January 19, 1977 January 2, 1979 Caputo, Bruce F. R NY 23rd January 26, 1977 January 2, 1979 CRS-1718 Member Party State District Began Assignment Ended Assignment 96th Congress (1979-1981) Bennett, Charles E. D FL 3rd January 31, 1979 January 2, 1981 Hamilton, Lee H. D IN 9th January 31, 1979 January 2, 1981 Preyer, L. Richardson D NC 6th January 31, 1979 January 2, 1981 Slack, John M. Jr. D WV 3rd January 31, 1979 March 17, 1980 Murphy, Morgan F. D IL 2nd January 31, 1979 December 20, 1979 Murtha, John P. Jr. D PA 12th January 31, 1979 January 2, 1981 Spence, Floyd D. R SC 2nd January 24, 1979 January 2, 1981 Hollenbeck, Harold C. R NJ 9th January 24, 1979 January 2, 1981 Livingston, Robert L. R LA 1st January 24, 1979 January 2, 1981 Thomas, William M. R CA 18th January 24, 1979 January 2, 1981 Sensenbrenner, F. Jas Jr. R WI 9th January 24, 1979 January 2, 1981 Cheney, Richard B. R WY ALALa January 31, 1979 January 2, 1981 Stokes, Louis. D OH 21st February 6, 1980 January 2, 1981 Rahall, Nick J. II D WV 4th March 26, 1980 January 2, 1981 97th Congress (1981-1983) Stokes, Louis D OH 21st January 28, 1981 January 2, 1983 Rahall, Nick J. II D WV 4th January 28, 1981 January 2, 1983 Alexander, William V. Jr. D AR 1st January 28, 1981 January 2, 1983 Wilson, Charles D TX 2nd January 28, 1981 January 2, 1983 Holland, Kenneth L. D SC 5th January 28, 1981 January 2, 1983 Bailey, Donald A. D PA 21st January 28, 1981 January 2, 1983 Spence, Floyd R SC 2nd January 28, 1981 January 2, 1983 Conable, Barber B. Jr. R NY 35th January 28, 1981 January 2, 1983 Myers, John T. R IN 7th January 28, 1981 January 2, 1983 Forsythe, Edwin B. R NJ 6th January 28, 1981 January 2, 1983 Brown, Hank R CO 4th January 28, 1981 January 2, 1983 Hansen, James V. R UT 1st January 28, 1981 January 2, 1983 CRS-1819 Member Party State District Began Assignment Ended Assignment 98th Congress (1983-1985) Stokes, Louis D OH 21st January 6, 1983 January 2, 1985 Rahall, Nick J. II D WV 4th January 6, 1983 January 2, 1985 Jenkins, Edgar L. D GA 9th January 6, 1983 January 2, 1985 Dixon, Julian C. D CA 28th January 6, 1983 January 2, 1985 Fazio, Victor H. D CA 4th January 6, 1983 January 2, 1985 Coyne, William J. D PA 14th January 6, 1983 January 2, 1985 Spence, Floyd R SC 2nd January 6, 1983 January 2, 1985 Conable, Barber B. Jr. R NY 30th January 6, 1983 January 2, 1985 Myers, John T. R IN 7th January 6, 1983 January 2, 1985 Forsythe, Edwin B. R NJ 13th January 6, 1983 March 29, 1984 Brown, Hank R CO 4th January 6, 1983 January 2, 1985 Hansen, James V. R UT 1st January 6, 1983 January 2, 1985 Bliley, Thomas J. Jr. R VA 3rd May 9, 1984 January 2, 1985 99th Congress (1985-1987) Dixon, Julian C. D CA 28th January 7, 1985 January 2, 1987 Jenkins, Edgar L. D GA 9th January 30, 1985 January 2, 1987 Fazio, Victor H. D CA 4th January 30, 1985 January 2, 1987 Coyne, William J. D PA 14th January 30, 1985 January 2, 1987 Dwyer, Bernard J. D NJ 6th January 30, 1985 January 2, 1987 Mollohan, Alan B. D WV 1st January 30, 1985 January 2, 1987 Spence, Floyd R SC 2nd January 30, 1985 January 2, 1987 Myers, John T. R IN 7th January 30, 1985 January 2, 1987 Hansen, James V. R UT 1st January 30, 1985 January 2, 1987 Whitehurst, G. William R VA 2nd January 30, 1985 January 2, 1987 Pursell, Carl D. R MI 2nd January 30, 1985 January 2, 1987 Wortley, George R NY 27th January 30, 1985 January 2, 1987 CRS-1920 Member Party State District Began Assignment Ended Assignment 100th Congress (1987-1989) Dixon, Julian C. D CA 28th February 19, 1987 January 2, 1989 Fazio, Victor H. D CA 4th February 19, 1987 January 2, 1989 Dwyer, Bernard J. D NJ 6th February 19, 1987 January 2, 1989 Mollohan, Alan B. D WV 1st February 19, 1987 January 2, 1989 Gaydos, Joseph M. D PA 20th February 19, 1987 January 2, 1989 Atkins, Chester G. D MA 5th February 19, 1987 January 2, 1989 Spence, Floyd R SC 2nd January 21, 1987 June 1, 1988 Myers, John T. R IN 7th January 21, 1987 January 2, 1989 Hansen, James V. R UT 1st January 21, 1987 January 2, 1989 Pashayan, Charles S. Jr. R CA 17th January 21, 1987 January 2, 1989 Petri, Thomas E. R WI 6th January 21, 1987 January 2, 1989 Craig, Larry E. R ID 1st January 21, 1987 January 2, 1989 Brown, Hank R CO 4th June 2, 1988 January 2, 1989 101st Congress (1989-1991) Dixon, Julian C. D CA 29th January 3, 1989 January 2, 1991 Fazio, Victor H. D CA 4th January 3, 1989 January 2, 1991 Dwyer, Bernard J. D CA 29th January 3, 1989 January 2, 1991 Mollohan, Alan B. D NJ 6th January 3, 1989 January 2, 1991 Gaydos, Joseph M. D WV 1st January 3, 1989 January 2, 1991 Atkins, Chester G. D PA 20th January 3, 1989 January 2, 1991 Stokes, LouisaLouisb D OH 21st September 13, 1989 July 26, 1990 Myers, John T. R IN 7th January 3, 1989 January 2, 1991 Hansen, James V. R UT 1st January 3, 1989 January 2, 1991 Pashayan, Charles S. Jr. R CA 17th January 3, 1989 January 2, 1991 Petri, Thomas E. R WI 6th January 3, 1989 January 2, 1991 Craig, Larry E. R ID 1st January 3, 1989 January 2, 1991 Grandy, Fred R IA 6th January 3, 1989 January 2, 1991 CRS-2021 Member Party State District Began Assignment Ended Assignment 102nd Congress (1991-1993) Stokes, Louis D OH 21st February 6, 1991 January 2, 1993 Ackerman, Gary L. D NY 7th February 6, 1991 July 4, 1992 Darden, George (Buddy) D GA 7th February 6, 1991 July 4, 1992 Cardin, Benjamin L. D MD 3rd February 6, 1991 January 2, 1993 Pelosi, Nancy D CA 5th February 6, 1991 January 2, 1993 McDermott, Jim D WA 7th February 6, 1991 January 2, 1993 Mfume, KweisibKweisic D MD 7th October 9, 1991 January 2, 1993 Hansen, James V. R UT 1st February 6, 1991 January 2, 1993 Grandy, Fred R IA 6th February 6, 1991 January 2, 1993 Johnson, Nancy R CT 6th February 6, 1991 January 2, 1993 Bunning, Jim R KY 4th February 6, 1991 January 2, 1993 Kyl, Jon L. R AZ 4th February 6, 1991 January 2, 1993 Goss, Porter J. R FL 13th February 6, 1991 January 2, 1993 Hobson, David L. R OH 7th February 6, 1991 January 2, 1993 103rd Congress (1993-1995) McDermott, Jim D WA 7th February 4, 1993 January 2, 1995 Darden, George (Buddy) D GA 7th February 4, 1993 January 2, 1995 Cardin, Benjamim L. D MD 3rd February 4, 1993 January 2, 1995 Nancy, Pelosi D CA 5th February 4, 1993 January 2, 1995 Mfume, Kweisi D MD 7th February 4, 1993 January 2, 1995 Borski, Robert A. D PA 3rd February 4, 1993 January 2, 1995 Sawyer, Thomas C. D OH 14th February 4, 1993 January 2, 1995 Grandy, Fred R IA 6th January 5, 1993 January 2, 1995 Johnson, Nancy L. R CT 6th January 5, 1993 January 2, 1995 Bunning, Jim R KY 4th January 5, 1993 January 2, 1995 Kyl, Jon L. R AZ 4th January 5, 1993 January 2, 1995 Goss, Porter J. R FL 13th January 5, 1993 January 2, 1995 Hobson, David L. R OH 7th January 5, 1993 January 2, 1995 CRS-2122 Member Schiff, Steven Party State District R NY 1st Began Assignment Ended Assignment February 4, 1993 January 2, 1995 104th Congress (1995-1997)cd Johnson, Nancy L. R CT 6th January 20, 1995 January 21, 1997 Bunning, Jim R KY 4th January 20, 1995 January 9, 1997 Goss, Porter J. R FL 13th January 20, 1995 January 21, 1997 Hobson, David L. R OH 7th January 20, 1995 January 15, 1997 Schiff, Steven R NM 1st January 20, 1995 January 21, 1997 Smith, Lamar S.de R TX 21st January 9, 1997 January 21, 1997 McDermott, JimeJimf D WA 7th January 20, 1995 January 14, 1997 Cardin, Benjamin L. D MD 3rd January 20, 1995 January 21, 1997 Pelosi, Nancy D CA 5th January 20, 1995 January 21, 1997 Borski, Robert A. D PA 3rd January 20, 1995 January 21, 1997 Sawyer, Thomas C. D OH 14th January 20, 1995 January 21, 1997 105th Congress (1997-1999) Hansen, James V. R UT 1st January 9, 1997 January 2, 1999 Smith, Lamar S. R TX 21st September 29, 1997 January 2, 1999 Hefley, Joel R CO 5th September 29, 1997 January 2, 1999 Goodlatte, Robert R VA 6th September 29, 1997 January 2, 1999 Knollenbertg, Joe R MI 11th September 29, 1997 January 2, 1999 Berman, Howard L. D CA 26th February 10, 1997 January 2, 1999 Sabo, Martin O. D MN 5th September 29, 1997 January 2, 1999 Pastor, Ed D AZ 2nd September 29, 1997 January 2, 1999 Fatta, Chaka D PA 2nd September 29, 1997 January 2, 1999 Lofgen, Zoe D CA 16th September 29, 1997 January 2, 1999 106th Congress (1999-2001) Smith, Lamar S. R TX 21st January 6, 1999 January 2, 2001 Hefley, Joel R CO 5th January 19, 1999 January 2, 2001 Knollenbertg, Joe R MI 11th January 19, 1999 January 2, 2001 Portman, Rob R OH 2nd January 19, 1999 January 2, 2001 CRS-2223 Member Party State District Began Assignment Ended Assignment Camp, Dave R MI 4th January 19, 1999 January 2, 2001 Berman, Howard L. D CA 26th January 6, 1999 January 2, 2001 Sabo, Martin O. D MN 5th January 6, 1999 January 2, 2001 Pastor, Ed D AZ 2nd January 6, 1999 January 2, 2001 Fatta, Chaka D PA 2nd January 6, 1999 January 2, 2001 Lofgen, Zoe D CA 16th January 6, 1999 January 2, 2001 107th Congress (2001-2003) Hefley, Joel R CO 5th January 20, 2001 January 2, 2003 Portman, Rob R OH 2nd March 6, 2001 July 11, 2001 Hastings, Doc R WA 4th March 6, 2001 January 2, 2003 Hutchison, Asa R AR 3rd March 6, 2001 August 6, 2001 Biggert, Judy R IL 13th March 6, 2001 January 2, 2003 Hulshof, Kenny R MO 9th July 11, 2001 January 2, 2003 LaTourette, Steve R OH 19th October 10, 2001 January 2, 2003 Berman, Howard D CA 26th January 20, 2001 January 2, 2003 Sabo, Martin D MN 5th March 6, 2001 August 1, 2001 Pastor, Ed D AZ 2nd March 6, 2001 January 2, 2003 Lofgen, Zoe D CA 16th March 6, 2001 January 2, 2003 Jones, Stephanie Tubbs D OH 11th March 14, 2001 January 2, 2003 Green, Gene D TX 29th July 11, 2001 January 2, 2003 108th Congress (2003-2005) Hefley, Joel R CO 5th January 8, 2003 -January 2, 2005 Hastings, Doc R WA 4th February 11, 2003 - Hastings, Doc R WA 4thJanuary 2, 2005 Biggert, Judy R IL 13th February 11, 2003 -January 2, 2005 Hulshof, Kenny R MO 9th February 11, 2003 -January 2, 2005 LaTourette, Steve R OH 19th February 11, 2003 -January 2, 2005 Berman, Howard D CA 26th January 8, 2003 February 26, 2003 Mollohan, Alan B. D WV 1st February 5, 2003 -January 2, 2005 Jones, Stephanie Tubbs D OH 11th March 6, 2003 - CRS-23January 2, 2005 CRS-24 Member Party State District Began Assignment Ended Assignment Green, Gene D TX 29th March 6, 2003 -January 2, 2005 Roybal-Allard, Lucille D CA 34th March 6, 2003 -January 2, 2005 Doyle, Michael F. D PA 14th March 6, 2003 - a. Appointed to serve in place of Representative Atkins. b. Appointed to serve in place of Representative Stokes, and appointed to replace Representative Ackerman in the 102nd Congress on Aug. 11, 1992. cJanuary 2, 2005 109th Congress (2005-2007) Hastings, Doc R WA 4th February 2, 2005 - Biggert, Judy R IL 13th February 2, 2005 - Smith, Lamar R TX 21st February 2, 2005 - Hart, Melissa R TX 4th February 2, 2005 - Cole, Tom R OK 4th February 2, 2005 - Mollohan, Alan B. D WV 1st January 26, 2005 April 25, 2006 Berman, Howardg D CA 28th April 26, 2006 - Jones, Stephanie Tubbs D OH 11th February 9, 2005 - Green, Gene D TX 29th February 9, 2005 - Roybal-Allard, Lucille D CA 34th February 9, 2005 - Doyle, Michael F. D PA 14th February 9, 2005 - a. Representative At Large, i.e. the State’s only Member of the House. b. Appointed to serve in place of Representative Chester Atkins. c. Appointed to serve in place of Representative Louis Stokes, and appointed to replace Representative Gary L. Ackerman in the 102nd Congress on August 11, 1992. d. Most of the Members of the Committee from the 104th Congress were appointed to the Select Committee on Ethics in the 105th Congress, which existed from Jan.January 7, 1997, to Jan.January 21, 1997. This select committee was established established to resolve the Statement of Alleged Violations issued in the 104th Congress by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct against the Speaker of the House. This select committee expired on Jan. 21, January 21, 1997, with the House approving a reprimand against the Speaker. de. Appointed to the Select Committee on Ethics to complete the investigation begun by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. ef. Representative Jim McDermott was briefly replaced on the committee (July 23, 1996-July 24, 1996) by Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) during a committee inquiry involving Representative McDermott. g. Representative Howard Berman was appointed as the ranking member of the committee after Representative Alan Mollohan resigned from the committee. crsphpgw