Order Code RL30650
Senate Select Committee on Ethics:
A Brief
History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Updated March 26, 2008
Mildred L. Amer
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress
March 7, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL30650
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Senate Select Committee on Ethics:
A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Summary
This report provides a brief history of the creation, evolution, activities, and
membership of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. First established in 1964 as
the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, it was renamed the Select
Committee on Ethics in 1977 when its jurisdiction and procedures were expanded to
help implement revisions to the Senate Code of Official Conduct.
This six-member, bipartisan committee investigates complaints and allegations
of improper conduct and violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and
recommends, when appropriate, disciplinary action against Senators and staff. It also
suggests rules or regulations and renders advisory opinions to insure appropriate
Senate standards and conduct; and regulates the use of the franking privilege in the
Senate, investigates unauthorized disclosures of intelligence information, administers
the Senate financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act, and
regulates the disposition of gifts from foreign governments received by Members,
officers, and employees of the Senate.
Since 1964, committee public statements and official documents, as well as
information released by Senators who were the subject of committee action, indicate
that the committee has considered allegations involving at least 38 Senators, all but
three investigations occurring after 1977. Two Senators resigned before expected
expulsion (one for a bribery conviction and the other because of charges of sexual
misconduct and alterations to subpoenaed documents); one Senator was censured;
and two were denounced (a form of censure) by the full Senate for financial
misconduct. One Senator was “severely admonished” by the committee for the
acceptance of and failure to disclose prohibited gifts; one was rebuked by the
committee for improper acceptance of gifts; and one involved in the “Keating Five”
case was reprimanded by the committee. The other four Senators in the latter case
were criticized in written statements by the committee for showing poor judgement
and giving the appearance of acting improperly. In some of the 38 cases, complaints
were dismissed or no disciplinary or official action was reported to be taken by the
committee.
This report will be updated as necessary. For additional information, please see
CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of the Congressional Rules of Conduct: An
Historical Overview, by Mildred Amer.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Committee Evolution and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Creation of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct . . . . . . . . 4
Creation of the Select Committee on Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Senate Code of Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
First Code of Official Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1977 Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1989 and 1991 Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1995 Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2006 Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2007 Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Procedural Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1980 Actions/Senate Select Committee On Ethics Self Evaluation . . 13
1993 Actions/Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress . . . . 14
1993-1994 Senate Ethics Study Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1999 Senate Select Committee on Ethics Procedural Changes . . . . . . 16
Proposed Changes to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Tables
Appendix A. Members of the Senate Select Committee
on Standards and Conduct, 89th-94th Congresses (1965-1977) . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix B. Members of the Senate Select Committee
On Ethics, 95th -110th Congresses (1977-2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Senate Select Committee on
Ethics: A Brief History of Its
Evolution and Jurisdiction
Introduction
The U.S. Senate first established an ethics committee on July 24, 1964.1
Initially known as the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, it was renamed
the Select Committee on Ethics in February 1977 following Senate-wide committee
reorganization.2 Senate rules delegate to the committee the authority to investigate
allegations of wrongdoing by Senators and staff, adjudicate evidence of misconduct
and recommend penalties when appropriate, and provide advice on actions
permissible under the Senate rules of conduct.3
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution, states in part, “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.”
The Senate Ethics Committee is authorized to “(1) receive complaints and
investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate,
violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and violations
of rules and regulations of the Senate, relating to the conduct of individuals in the
performance of their duties as Members of the Senate, or as officers or employees of
the Senate, and to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions with respect
thereto; (2) recommend, when appropriate, disciplinary action against Members and
staff; (3) recommend rules or regulations necessary to insure appropriate Senate
standards and conduct; (4) report violations of any law to the proper Federal and
State authorities; (5) regulate the use of the franking privilege in the Senate; (6)
investigate unauthorized disclosures of intelligence information; (7) implement the
Senate public financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act; (8)
regulate the receipt and disposition of gifts from foreign governments received by
Members, officers, and employees of the Senate; (9) render advisory opinions on the
application of Senate rules and laws to Members, officers, and employees; (10) for
complaints filed under the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 respecting
1
“Proposed Amendment of Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate Relative to the
Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and Administration,” Congressional Record, vol.
10, July 24, 1964, pp. 16929-16940.
2
“Committee System Reorganization,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, Feb. 4, 1977, pp.
660-3699.
3
U.S. Congress, Senate, Senate Manual Containing the Standing Rules, Orders, Laws, and
Resolutions Affecting the Business of the United States Senate, 107th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc.
107-1 (Washington, GPO, 2002), pp. 108-118 (Standing Order 80).
CRS-2
conduct occurring prior to January 23, 1996, review, upon request, any decision of
the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices;”4 (11) “develop and implement
programs for Members, officers, and employees to educate them about standards of
conduct applicable in the performance of their official duties;”5 (12) “conduct
ongoing ethics training and awareness programs for Members of the Senate and
Senate staff;”6 and (13) issue an annual report on the number of alleged violations of
Senate rules received from any source, including the number raised by a Senator or
staff of the committee, and including the number of allegations dismissed or on
which the committee took the specific actions.7
Much of the business of the ethics committee is advisory, helping Senators and
staff abide by the Senate Code of Official Conduct.8 The majority of the committee’s
work is not publicized because of its desire to grant “due process” to individuals
subject to allegations.
The committee may investigate allegations brought by Senators and Senate staff
as well as those brought against a Senator or Senate staff member by an individual
or group, or it may initiate an inquiry on its own. It has formal procedures for the
filing of complaints and does not publicize allegations that, in its judgment, do not
merit full review. After an investigative process, the committee may recommend to
the Senate appropriate sanctions against a Senator, including censure, expulsion,
party discipline, and financial restitution. In addition, effective in 1999, the
committee may issue a reprimand or assess financial reimbursement without full
Senate approval.9 In the case of an officer or employee, the committee may
recommend dismissal, suspension, and payment of restitution.
Since its creation in 1964, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has
considered allegations involving approximately 38 Senators.10 All but three of the
4
U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Senate Ethics Manual, 108th Cong., 1st
sess., S.Pub. 108-1 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 4.
5
Ibid, p. 358, and “Official Conduct Amendments of 1977,” (S.Res. 338, 88th Congress as
amended by S.Res. 110, 95th Congress ), Congressional Record, vol. 123, Apr. 1, 1977, pp.
10044-10068. See also various editions of the Congressional Record for Mar. 17- 31, 1977,
for the entire debate on the provisions of S.Res. 110.
6
P.L. 110-81,121 Stat. 773, The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
7
P.L. 110-81,121 Stat. 773-7744, The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of
2007.
8
Useful information about the committee’s activities, the Senate Code of Conduct, and
interpretative rulings can be found on the committee’s website at [http://ethics.senate.gov].
9
“Senate Ethics Procedure Reform Resolution of 1999,” Congressional Record, vol. 145,
Nov. 5, 1999, pp. 28834-28843.
10
This number is derived from those Senators formally disciplined by the full Senate or by
the committee only; from information released by the committee through press releases and
committee documents; or from information released by those Senators who were under
investigation but not subject to a committee or Senate punishment. There is not a single
source for documenting all of the cases considered by the Senate Select Committee on
(continued...)
CRS-3
committee’s actions occurred after 1977.11 As a result of committee investigations,
two Senators resigned before expected expulsion (one for a bribery conviction and
the other because of charges of sexual misconduct and altering documents
subpoenaed by the committee); one Senator was “censured”; and two were
“denounced” by the Senate (a form of censure) for financial misconduct. One Senator
was “rebuked” by the committee for improper acceptance of gifts; one Senator was
“severely admonished” by the committee for the acceptance of and failure to disclose
prohibited gifts; and one Senator was “admonished” by the committee for “conduct
reflecting discreditably on the Senate,” including using campaign funds for legal
expenses without the required prior approval of the Senate Select Committee on
Ethics.12 One Senator, involved in the case known as the “Keating Five,” was
“reprimanded” by the committee. The other four Senators in the latter case were
criticized in written statements from the committee for showing poor judgement and
giving the appearance of acting improperly.13 In some of the 38 cases, complaints
were dismissed for lack of merit or with no disciplinary action reported to be taken
by the committee after an investigation.14
Wide-ranging inquiries and investigations involving more than one Senator and
announced by the Ethics Committee dealt with special car-leasing arrangements for
Senators, the introduction of legislation favorable to Chinese seamen, alleged illegal
campaign contributions from the Gulf Oil Company, alleged Korean influence
peddling, the unauthorized disclosure of classified information about the Senate’s
10
(...continued)
Ethics. Good resources include Stephen C. Rodberds, “Do Congressional Ethics Committees
Matter? U.S. Senate Ethics Cases, 1789-2000,” in Public Integrity, vol. 6, Winter 2003-04,
pp. 25-38; “Congressional Ethics Cases, 1976-1980,” in Congressional Ethics, 2nd ed.
(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1980), pp. 21-35; “Seating and Disciplining
Members,” in Guide to Congress, 5th ed.. vol. II (Washington: Congressional Quarterly,
2000), pp. 915-988, supplemented by various editions of Congress and the Nation,
published annually by Congressional Quarterly Inc.; Mary Ann Noyer, Catalogue of
Congressional Ethics Cases,1796-1992 (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1995); and
U.S. Senate, Senate, Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases, 1793-1990, prepared by Anne
Butler and Wendy Wolff, 103rd Cong., 1st sess, S. Doc. 103-33 (Washington: GPO, 1995),
pp. 409-442 [http://senate.gov/reference/reference_item/election_book.htm].
11
The committee sometimes acts on complaints that do not reach a formal investigation
stage. The committee usually does not acknowledge such cases even if they are reported in
the press. Therefore, it is difficult to obtain a precise number of “cases” considered by the
committee. U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Ethics, “Statement By Senators Boxer and
Cornyn, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee,” press release, Mar. 5,
2007, [http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/pr030507.pdf].
12
See, for example, U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Ethics, “Public Letter of
Admonition,” press release, Feb. 13, 2008, [http://ethics.senate.gov/].
13
This case (1989-1991) involved the actions of the five Senators suspected of doing favors
for the owner of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, who was a campaign
contributor.
14
As mentioned earlier, the committee sometimes has disciplined Senators directly without
recommending that the Senate take official action. The committee “punishments” have
included a “reprimand,” an “admonishment,” and a “rebuke.”
CRS-4
consideration of the Panama Canal Treaty, and several discrimination issues.15 No
disciplinary action was taken in any of those cases.
Committee Evolution and Background
Creation of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Prior
to 1964, there were no congressional ethics committees or formal rules governing the
conduct of Members, officers, and employees of either house of Congress; nor was
there a consistent approach to the investigation of alleged misconduct. When
allegations were investigated, the investigation was usually done by a special or
select committee created for that purpose. Sometimes, however, allegations were
considered by the House or Senate without prior committee action.
Traditionally, the Senate and the House of Representatives have exercised their
powers of self discipline with caution. According to Senate Historian Richard
Baker, “For nearly two centuries, a simple and informal code of behavior existed.
Prevailing norms of general decency served as the chief determinants of proper
legislative conduct.”16 Baker further noted that for most of its history, “Congress has
chosen to deal, on a case-by-case basis, only with the most obvious acts of
wrongdoing, those clearly ‘inconsistent with the trust and duty of a member.’”17
Increasing attention to congressional ethics began in the 1940s, when concern
was first expressed about the lack of financial disclosure requirements for the three
branches of government. There was also public criticism about Members of
Congress supplementing their salaries with income from speeches and other outside
activities. Senator Wayne Morse, the first Member to introduce public financial
disclosure legislation, defended Members’ right to earn outside income, but believed
that the American people were entitled to know about their sources of income.18
Senator Morse’s 1946 resolution (S.Res. 306) would have required Senators to file
annual public financial disclosure reports. It was predicated “upon the very sound
philosophical principle enunciated by Plutarch that [Members of Congress just as]
Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”19
Senator Morse continued to introduce his measure through the 1960s, ultimately
expanding it to include all three branches of government, and gaining support from
15
See, for example, “Congressional Ethics Cases, 1976-1980,” in Congressional Ethics, 2nd
ed. (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1980), pp. 21-47.
16
Richard Baker, “The History of Congressional Ethics,” in Bruce Jennings and Daniel
Callahan, eds., Representation and Responsibility: Exploring Legislative Ethics (New York:
Plenum Press, 1985), p. 4. (Hereafter cited as Baker, “The History of Congressional
Ethics.”)
17
Ibid., p. 3.
18
Senator Wayne Morse, “Reports by Senators on Sources of Outside Income,” remarks in
the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 92, July 23, 1946, p. 9741.
19
Ibid.
CRS-5
Senators Paul Douglas and Clifford Case.20 During the 1950s and early 1960s, there
were various unsuccessful attempts to create joint or select congressional committees
to adopt and monitor codes of official conduct for Members and employees of the
Senate.
Momentum for reform grew after Robert G. (Bobby) Baker, Secretary to the
Senate Democratic Majority, resigned from his job in October 1963, following
allegations that he had misused his official position for personal financial gain.21 For
the next year and a half, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee held
hearings to investigate the business interests and activities of Senate officials and
employees in order to ascertain what, if any, conflicts of interest or other
improprieties existed and whether any additional laws or regulations were needed.22
The committee recognized that serious allegations had been made against a former
employee, and that no specific rules or regulations governed the duties and scope of
activities of Members, officers, or employees of the Senate.
In its first report, the Senate Rules Committee characterized many of Baker’s
outside activities as being in conflict with his official duties and made several
recommendations, including adoption of public financial disclosure rules and other
guidelines for Senate employees.23
Subsequently, as part of its conclusion of the Baker case, the Rules Committee
held additional hearings on proposals advocating a code of ethics in conjunction with
a pending pay raise, the creation of a joint congressional ethics committee to write
an ethics code, and the adoption of various rules requiring public disclosure of
personal finances by Senators and staff and the disclosure of ex parte
communications.24 Additions to the Senate rules — calling for public financial
disclosure reports and more controls on staff involvement in Senate campaign funds
— were then introduced to implement the committee’s recommendations.25
20
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Financial or Business
Interests of Officers or Employees of the Senate, hearings pursuant to S.Res. 212, part 23,
88th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., May 27, 1964 (Washington: GPO, 1964), pp. 2021-2027.
21
Jack Landau, “Baker Resigns Post As Probe Widens,” The Washington Post, Oct. 8, 1963,
pp. A1, A5.
22
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Financial or Business
Interests of Officers or Employees of the Senate, hearings pursuant to S.Res. 212, parts 1-27,
88th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., 1963-1964 (Washington: GPO, 1964); and U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Construction of the District of Columbia
Stadium, and Matters Related Thereto, hearings pursuant to S.Res. 212 and S.Res. 367, parts
1-13, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., and 89th Cong., 1st sess., 1964-1965 (Washington: GPO, 19641965).
23
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Financial or Business
Interests of Officers and Employees of the Senate, report pursuant to S.Res. 212, 88th Cong.,
2nd sess., S.Rept. 88-1175 (Washington: GPO, 1964).
24
Ibid.
25
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Proposed Rules XLI and
(continued...)
CRS-6
In the report on the proposed additions to Senate rules, Senator John Sherman
Cooper, a member of the Rules Committee, discussed the committee’s rejection of
his proposal for the establishment of a select committee on standards and conduct.26
The proposed committee would have been empowered to receive and investigate
complaints of unethical activity, as well as to propose rules and make
recommendations to the Senate on disciplinary action.
To implement the proposed new Senate rules, the Committee on Rules and
Administration reported a measure granting itself authority to investigate infractions
of all Senate rules and to recommend disciplinary action.27 On July 24, 1964, during
debate on the proposed new ethics rules (S.Res. 337), and a resolution (S.Res. 338)
to give the Rules Committee additional authority, the Senate adopted a substitute
proposal by Senator Cooper to establish a permanent, bipartisan Senate Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct.28 The Senate chose to create a bipartisan
ethics committee instead of granting the Rules Committee disciplinary authority, in
part, because of the difficulties in the Baker investigation.
The new select committee was similar to the one Senator Cooper had advocated
during several stages of the Bobby Baker investigation. The Senator had declared
that, “one of the greatest duties of such a committee would be to have the judgement
to know what it should investigate and what it should not.”29 Moreover, with the
creation of this committee, an internal disciplinary body was established in Congress
for the first time on a continuing basis.
The six members of the new committee were not appointed until a year later, in
July 1965, however, because of the Senate leadership’s desire to wait until the Rules
Committee had completed the Baker investigation.30 In October 1965, the committee
elected a chairman and vice chairman, appointed its first staff, and began developing
standards of conduct for the Senate.31
25
(...continued)
XLII to the Standing Rules of the Senate, report to accompany S.Res. 337, 88th Cong., 2nd
sess., S.Rept. 88-1125 (Washington: GPO, 1964).
26
Ibid., p. 13.
27
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Amending Rule XXV of
the Standing Rules of the Senate Relative to the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and
Administration, report to accompany S.Res. 338, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 88-1147
(Washington: GPO, 1964).
28
“Proposed Amendment of Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate Relative to the
Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and Administration,” Congressional Record, vol.
110, July 24, 1964, pp. 16929-16940.
29
Ibid., p. 16933.
30
“Announcement of the Appointment of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct,”
Congressional Record, vol. 111, July 9, 1965, p. 16179.
31
Sen. John Stennis was elected chairman, and Sen. Wallace Bennett was elected vice
chairman, positions they held for 10 years.
CRS-7
Creation of the Select Committee on Ethics. Although the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct undertook several investigations from 1969
to 1977, it was sometimes characterized as “antiquated,” “do-little,” or as a “watchdog without teeth.”32 Moreover, the Senate ethics code, which the committee wrote
in 1968, was often viewed as ineffective.33
In 1976, a select committee, created to study the Senate committee system,
recommended that the functions of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct
should be placed under the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.34 The Rules
Committee, however, rejected the idea and instead recommended establishment of
a newly constituted bipartisan ethics committee to demonstrate to the public the
“seriousness with which the Senate views congressional conduct.”35 In response, the
permanent Select Committee on Ethics was created in 1977 to replace the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct.36 Initially, membership on the new select
committee was limited to six years. Two years later, the six-year limitation was
removed.37
Jurisdiction
When the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was created in 1964, it
was given the authority to (1) investigate allegations of improper conduct which may
reflect upon the Senate; (2) investigate violations of laws, rules, and regulations of
the Senate relating to the conduct of Members, officers, and employees in their
official duties; (3) recommend disciplinary action, when appropriate; and (4)
32
Quotes are found in Martha Angle, “Ethics Panel Called ‘Antiquated,’” The Washington
Star, Dec. 18, 1976, p. A11; Robert Sherrill, “We Can’t Depend on Congress to Keep
Congress Honest,” The New York Times Magazine, July 19, 1970, pp. 5-7, 13-14; and Jerry
Landauer, “Senate Ethics: Hear No Evil, See No Evil,” The Washington Star, Sept. 19,
1976, p. E3.
33
Jack Anderson, “The Embarrassment of Clean Government,” The Washington Post, June
8, 1975, p. C7; James Gannon and Jerry Landauer, “Despite Sex Scandals, Self-Serving
Actions Are the Major Problem,” Wall Street Journal, June 15, 1976, pp. 1, 22; “A
Congressional Scandal” (editorial), The Washington Star, Sept. 23, 1976, p. A12; “Same Old
Club”(editorial), Federal Times, Oct. 4, 1976, p. 9; and Anthony Marro, “Congressional
Ethics and the Need for Basic Reform,” The New York Times, Jan. 30, 1977, p. E3..
34
U.S. Congress, Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System,
First Report with Recommendations, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 94-1395 (Washington:
GPO, 1976), pp. 95-96.
35
U.S. Congress, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, Committee System
Reorganization Amendments of 1977, report to accompany S.Res. 4, 95th Cong., 1st sess.,
S.Rept. 95-1 (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 4-5.
36
“Senate Committee Reorganization,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, Feb. 1, 1977, p.
2886.
37
“Elimination of Certain Requirements for Membership on the Select Committee on
Ethics,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, Oct. 31, 1979, p. 30266.
CRS-8
recommend additional Senate rules to insure proper conduct.38 The Select Committee
on Ethics assumed this authority as well as responsibility for enforcing and
interpreting the Senate Code of Official Conduct, which was adopted in 1968 and
substantially amended in 1977.39
In 1973, Congress had passed legislation (P.L. 93-191) clarifying the proper use
of the franking privilege by Members of Congress and authorizing the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct to provide assistance and counsel to Senators
and staff on the use of the frank.40
Subsequently, when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was created
in 1976, the ethics committee was given specific jurisdiction to investigate any
unauthorized disclosure of intelligence information by a Member, officer, or
employee of the Senate and to report to the Senate on any substantiated allegation.41
A year later, in August 1977, with the enactment of P.L. 95-105 (FY1978
Foreign Relations Authorization Act), which amended the Foreign Gifts and
Decorations Act of 1966, the recently renamed Select Committee on Ethics was
designated the “employing agency” for the Senate and authorized to issue regulations
governing the acceptance by Senators and staff of gifts, trips, and decorations from
foreign governments.42
In August 1979, the Select Committee on Ethics was given responsibility for
administering the Senate public financial disclosure requirements contained in the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.43
With the adoption of Title III ( Government Employee Rights Act of 1991) of
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Senate established the Office of Fair Employment
Practices to adjudicate discrimination complaints and gave the Select Committee on
Ethics jurisdiction to review, upon request, decisions of the office.44 Subsequently,
in 1995, Congress approved the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), which
38
S.Res. 338, adopted on July 24, 1964. See “Proposed Amendment of Rule XXV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate Relative to the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and
Administration,” Congressional Record, vol. 110, July 24, 1964, pp. 16929-16940.
39
U.S. Congress, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, Committee System
Reorganization Amendments of 1977, report to accompany S.Res. 4, 95th Cong., 1st sess.,
S.Rept. 95-1 (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 4-5; “Official Conduct Amendments of 1977
(S.Res. 338, 88th Congress as amended by S.Res. 110),” Congressional Record, vol. 123,
Apr. 1, 1977, pp. 10044-10068. See also various editions of the Congressional Record for
Mar. 17- 31, 1977, for the entire debate on the provisions of S.Res. 110.
40
P.L. 93-191; 87 Stat. 737.
41
“Proposed Standing Committee on Intelligence Activities,” Congressional Record, vol.
122, May 13, 1976, p. 13992.
42
P.L. 95-105; 91 Stat. 863.
43
5 U.S.C. app. Sec. 101-111.
44
P.L. 102-166; 105 Stat. 1088-1090; and “Civil Rights Act of 1991,” Congressional
Record, vol. 137, Oct. 30, 1991, pp. 29018-29020.
CRS-9
applied 12 civil rights, labor, and other workplace laws to the legislative branch.45
The CAA superceded the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, and established
a procedure outside the Senate for considering violations of these statutes.
Nevertheless, passage of the CAA did not affect the Senate Ethics Committee’s
separate and independent authority to discipline a Member, officer, or employee for
violating the Senate’s anti-discrimination rule (Senate Rule XLII) or any of the 12
statutes.46
The Senate Code of Conduct
First Code of Official Conduct. When the members of the new Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct initially met in October 1965, one of their first
duties was to recommend rules of conduct for Members, officers, and employees of
the Senate. This work, however, was interrupted by the committee’s first disciplinary
case, which ultimately resulted in the June 1967 censure of a Senator for the
conversion of campaign funds to personal use.47 The committee subsequently was
occupied by allegations against another Senator, although it continued to work
concurrently on a Senate code of conduct.48
In March 1968, the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct reported a
resolution making four additions to the Standing Rules of the Senate, which were
adopted after several days of debate.49 These were the first official Senate rules of
conduct for Members, officers, and employees.50 The four areas covered by the rules
45
P.L. 104-1; 109 Stat. 3-44. P.L. 104-1 originally applied 11 laws. In 1998, the CAA was
amended to include provisions of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act. P.L. 105339; 112 Stat. 3185-3186.
46
U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Senate Ethics Manual,, 108th Cong.,
1 sess., S.Pub. 108-1 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 193.
st
47
U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Standards of Conduct
for Members of the Senate, Officers and Employees of the Senate, report to accompany
S.Res. 266, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 90-1015 (Washington: GPO, 1968), p. 3; and
“Seating and Disciplining Members,” in Guide to Congress, 5th ed., vol. II (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, 2000), pp. 930-931.
48
U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Standards of Conduct
for Members of the Senate, Officers and Employees of the Senate, report to accompany
S.Res. 266, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 90-1015 (Washington: GPO, 1968), p. 3; and
“Senate Ethics Committee,” in Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XXIII, 1967
(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1968), pp. 582-584.
49
U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Standards of Conduct
for Members of the Senate, Officers and Employees of the Senate, report to accompany
S.Res. 266, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 90-1015 (Washington: GPO, 1968); and “Senate
Standards of Conduct,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, Mar. 19, 1968, pp. 6941-6943,
6948-6960; Mar. 20, 1968, pp. 7129-7134, 7137-7154; Mar. 21, 1968, pp. 7249-7279; and
Mar. 22, 1968, pp. 7369-7383, 7388-7408.
50
By the early 1960s, many Members of Congress had begun the practice of publishing in
(continued...)
CRS-10
changes were (1) outside employment of officers and employees, (2) raising and
permissible uses of campaign funds, (3) political fund-raising activities of Senate
staff, and (4) annual financial disclosures by senatorial candidates as well as
Members, officers, and designated employees of the Senate.51 With the exceptions
of gifts in excess of $50 and honoraria in excess of $300, the information in the
disclosure reports was to be kept confidential and not available to the public.
The preamble to the then-new rules, which is still in effect and appears in the
nonstatutory Standing Orders of the Senate (Senate Manual, Standing Order No. 87),
declared the following to be the policy of the Senate:
Resolved, It is the policy of the Senate that —
(a) The ideal concept of public trust, expressed by the words, ‘A public
office is a public trust,’ signifies that the officer has been entrusted with public
power by the people; that the officer holds this power in trust to be used only for
their benefit and never for the benefit of himself or of a few; and that the officer
must never conduct his own affairs so as to infringe on the public interest. All
official conduct of Members of the Senate should be guided by this paramount
concept of public office.
(b) These rules, as the written expression of certain standards of conduct,
complement the body of unwritten but generally accepted standards that continue
to apply to the Senate.
1977 Revisions. On April 1, 1977, the Senate Code of Official Conduct was
revised and amended, and the procedures and duties of the Select Committee on
Ethics were expanded.52 Adoption of S.Res. 110 followed efforts to restore loss of
public confidence affecting the government at the time. Three months earlier, the
Special Committee on Official Conduct had been established “to recommend a code
of conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the Senate.”53 The Watergate
scandal and its repercussions had affected the entire government; a number of polls
and studies at the time indicated that there had been a decline in public confidence
50
(...continued)
the Congressional Record and other places disclosures about their personal finances.
Former Sen. Stephen Young claimed that he was the first Member of Congress to disclose
to the public his entire financial assets, holdings, and earnings (1959). He also established
a rule fixing the valuation of $5.00 as the maximum value for any gift he would receive.
Former Sen. Paul Douglas had a rule for himself and his staff of returning any gift in excess
of the figure of $2.50. See Sen. Stephen Young,“Senatorial Standards of Conduct,”
Congressional Record, vol. 114, Mar. 19, 1968, pp. 6941-6943.
51
This was the first time that Senators, Senate staff, and Senate candidates were required
to file annual financial disclosures reports.
52
“Official Conduct Amendments of 1977 (S.Res. 110),” Congressional Record, vol. 123,
Apr. 1, 1977, pp. 10044-10068. See also various editions of the Congressional Record for
Mar. 17- 31, 1977, for the entire debate on the provisions of S.Res. 110.
53
Robert C. Byrd, “Establishment of Special Committee to Propose a Code of Conduct,”
Congressional Record, vol. 123, Jan. 18, 1977, pp. 1361-1363; and U.S. Congress, Senate
Special Committee on Official Conduct, Senate Code of Official Conduct, report to
accompany S.Res. 110, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-49 (Washington: GPO, 1977).
CRS-11
in all three branches of the government, particularly Congress. Several studies had
recommended limitations on outside earned income, more explicit standards of
senatorial conduct, and linking tougher standards to a proposed 1977 congressional
pay raise.54
Title I of S.Res. 110 contained amendments to the Senate Code of Official
Conduct adopted in 1968. Title II amended S.Res. 338, the 1964 resolution that
created the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct and constituted the basic
charter of the newly created Select Committee on Ethics.
Included in Title I were the first public financial disclosure requirements for
Members, officers, and employees of the Senate, as well as the first limits on gifts,
outside earnings, the franking privilege, the use of the radio and television studios,
unofficial office accounts, and lame-duck foreign travel. There was also a provision
prohibiting discrimination in staff employment.
Title II provided the new Select Committee on Ethics with the authority to issue
regulations to implement the revised Code of Official Conduct and to issue
interpretative rulings to clarify its meaning and applicability. The committee was
also mandated to compile advisory opinions and rulings and to make them available
periodically to Senators and staff.55 Title II of S.Res. 110 also:
(1) preserved for the ethics committee the discretion to initiate investigations;
(2) set forth the procedures for the receipt and processing of sworn complaints;
(3) spelled out the requirement that an affirmative vote of four committee
members was necessary for any report, recommendation, advisory opinion,
or investigation;
(4) required the committee to adopt written rules for investigations;
(5) provided for the optional disqualification of committee members in any
investigations;
(6) stipulated that outside counsel must be hired for investigations unless the
committee specifically decides not to use such counsel;
(7) clarified that no investigation could be made of any alleged violation
which was not considered a violation at the time it was alleged to have
occurred; and
(8) enumerated specific sanctions that the committee could recommend in
calling upon the Senate to take disciplinary action.
1989 and 1991 Revisions. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and the FY1992
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act further amended the Senate Code of Official
Conduct by changing the restrictions on the acceptance of gifts and travel by
Members, officers, and employees of the Senate; banning honoraria; and limiting
54
“House, Senate Adopt New Codes of Ethics,” in Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol.
XXXIII, 1977 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1977), pp. 763-781.
55
The committee has compiled its interpretative rulings in U.S. Congress, Senate Select
Committee on Ethics, Senate Ethics Manual, 108th Cong., 1st sess., S.Pub. 108-1
(Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 197-308. See also [http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/
pdffiles/manual.pdf]
CRS-12
other outside earned income of Senators, officers, and designated employees.56 The
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act also further restricted the source of funds for
the conduct of officially connected duties.
1995 Revisions. On July 28, 1995, the Senate amended its gift rule (Rule
XXXV) by adopting S.Res. 158, which placed stricter limits on the acceptance of
gifts and travel by Senators and staff.57 Rule XXXV, which is still applicable,
banned gifts of $50 or more and placed an annual $100 limit on gifts from any one
source. Gifts and meals valued at less than $10 did not have to be aggregated toward
the annual limit. Also, lobbyists were banned from contributing to legal defense
funds established for Members and congressional staff, and from contributing to any
charitable foundations they have established. Under Rule XXXV, lobbyists also
could not provide “necessary expenses” for Members’ or officers’ travel in
conjunction with an “officially connected” trip. Also banned was free travel to
events that are substantially recreational.
2006 Action. During the 109th Congress, the Senate adopted S. 2349, the
Legislative and Lobbying Transparency Accountability Act of 2006.58 When the bill
was taken up by the House, that chamber struck all but the enacting clause and
inserted provisions of a related measure. The Senate requested a conference and
appointed conferees, but the House took no additional action. The Senate-passed
measure contained provisions (1) enhancing disclosures by lobbyists and adding
more requirements for former Members and staff who become lobbyists, (2) banning
most gifs to Senators and staff, (3) strengthening the rules for travel by Senators and
staff, and (4) mandating ethics training for Senators and staff.
2007 Action. In the first session of the 110th Congress, Congress passed the
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.59 This act requires annual
activity reports from the Senate Select Committee on Ethics that show (1) the number
of alleged violations of Senate rules received from any source, including the number
56
P.L 101-194; 103 Stat. 1760-1763, 1778-1783 (Nov. 30, 1989); and P.L.102-90, 105 Stat.
469-470 (Aug. 14, 1991).
57
“Congressional Gift Reform,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, July 28, 1995, pp. 2093920952.
58
“Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act,” Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 152, Mar. 29, 2006, pp. S2490-S2511.
59
P.L. 110-81; 121 Stat. 735-776, Sept. 14, 2007. For a complete discussion of this
measure, see CRS Report RL34166, Lobbying Law and Ethics Rules Changes in the 110th
Congress, by Jack Maskell. This measure was initially known as the Legislative
Transparency and Accountability Act. See “Legislative Transparency and Accountability
Act,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, Jan. 18, 2007, pp. S737-S746. See also
various editions of the Congressional Record for Jan. 9-12 and 16-17 for Senate debate on
this measure. In addition refer to U.S. Congress, House Committee on Judiciary, Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 110-161, Part
I (Washington: GPO, 2007); “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007,”
Congressional Record, vol. 153, July 31, 2007, pp. H9192-H9210; and “Honest Leadership
and Open Government Act of 2207,” Congressional Record, vol. 153, Aug. 2, 2007, pp.
S10685-S10719 and S10723-S10724.
CRS-13
raised by a Senator or the staff of the committee; (2) a list by number and category
of alleged violations that were dismissed; (3) the number of alleged violations for
which the committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry, that resulted in an
adjudicatory review, or that were dismissed for lack of substantial merit; (4) the
number of private or public letters of admonition issued; (5) the number of matters
resulting in disciplinary sanctions; and (6) any other information deemed by the
committee to be appropriate to describe the previous year’s activities.60 The first
report required by the new law was released in January 2008.61
In addition, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (1) requires the
Select Committee on Ethics to conduct mandatory ethics training for Senators and
staff; (2) bans most gifts from lobbyists to Senators as well as to Senate officers and
employees; (3) restricts the acceptance of expenses from entities that employ
lobbyists for officially connected travel by Senators and Senate staff; (4) requires
Senators and staff to get prior approval from the Senate Select Committee on Ethics
for officially connected travel; (5) requires additional detail on officially connected
travel in reports estimating expenses received; (6) extends to two years from one the
lobbying ban on Senators who become lobbyists; (7) prohibits Senate staff who
become lobbyists from lobbying anyone in the Senate for one year after leaving
office; (8) eliminates Senate floor, parking, and gym privileges for Senators who
become lobbyists; (9) establishes conditions related to negotiations for future private
employment by Senators and senior staff; and (10) denies annuity payments for
Senate service to Senators convicted of certain crimes.
Other provisions in the act include wide-ranging lobbying disclosure reforms,
including quarterly, electronic filing by lobbyists with the Secretary of the Senate and
the Clerk of the House, and so-called “earmark” reform. A number of provisions in
the act apply to both the Senate and the House of Representatives.62
Procedural Reform
1980 Actions/Senate Select Committee On Ethics Self Evaluation.
After the Senate adopted the Official Conduct Amendments of 1977 (its revised code
of conduct), many Senators complained both publicly and privately that the new code
was too restrictive and unrealistic.63 During its first years, the newly created Select
Committee on Ethics worked on interpreting the new rules for the Senate. On
February 1, 1980, the Senate adopted S.Res. 109, which directed the Ethics
Committee to undertake a “comprehensive review of the Senate Code of Official
60
P.L. 110-81, Sec. 554, 121 Stat., 773-774 (Sept. 14, 2007).
61
Sen. Barbara Boxer, “Annual Report for 2007—Select Committee on Ethics,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154, Jan. 31, 2008, pp. S538-S539.
62
63
P.L. 110-81; 121 Stat. 735-776 (Sept. 14, 2007).
Official Conduct Amendments of 1979,” Congressional Record, vol. 126, Feb. 1, 1980,
pp. 1571-1579; and Lloyd Shearer, “The Ethics Code,” Parade Magazine, Oct. 2, 1977, p.
32.
CRS-14
Conduct and the provisions for its enforcement and implementation and for
investigation of allegations of improper conduct by Senators” and staff.64
During the course of its review, the committee held hearings in November 1980,
where academicians, federal and state ethics officials, and Members testified.65 The
committee sent questionnaires to Senators, and consulted the Hastings Center
Institute of Society, Ethics, and Life Sciences, which issued two reports on proposed
changes in the Senate Code of Official Conduct and its enforcement.66 The
committee was granted several delays in making final recommendations, and it
ultimately never issued a report to the Senate.67
1993 Actions/Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.
During the 103rd Congress (1993-1995), the Joint Committee on the Organization of
Congress studied the congressional ethics process. Congressional and legal scholars
and current and former Members of Congress testified during February 1993
hearings.68 Suggestions encompassed revamping the entire ethics system, including
separating into two subcommittees the investigative and adjudicatory functions of the
committee during investigations (a process already in place in the House); using
outside panels of retired Members, former jurists, or citizens to assist in disciplinary
cases; developing a written ethics manual; increasing ethics training and education;
and establishing a “statute of limitations” for Senate investigations similar to one
already in place in the House.
In their December 1993 final report, the Senate members of the joint committee
recommended that action on specific proposals for reforming the Senate ethics
process be deferred until the then-new Senate Ethics Study Commission, established
64
Congressional Record, vol. 126, Feb. 1, 1980, pp. 1571-1579.
65
U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Revising the Senate Code of Official
Conduct Pursuant to Senate Resolution 109, hearings, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., Nov. 18-19,
1980 (Washington: GPO, 1981).
66
The Hastings Center, Revising the United States Senate Code of Ethics (Hastings-onHudson, NY: The Hastings Center, 1981); and The Hastings Center, The Ethics of
Legislative Life (Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: The Hastings Center, 1985).
67
Irwin B. Arieff, “Senate Ethics Committee Delays Code Revisions,” Congressional
Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 39, Apr. 4, 1981, pp. 604-605; and Irwin Arieff, “Code
Action Delayed” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 39, May 9, 1981, p. 824.
68
U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Background Materials:
Supplemental Information Provided to Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization
of Congress, S.Prt. 103-55, 103rd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 115-165;
U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Ethics Process:
Testimony of Former Senator Abraham Ribicoff and a Panel of Academic Experts, hearings,
103rd Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 16, 1993 (Washington: GPO, 1993); and U.S. Congress, Joint
Committee on the Organization of Congress, Ethics Process: Testimony of Hon. Louis
Stokes, Hon. James Hansen, and a Panel of Academic Experts, hearings, 103rd Cong., 1st
sess., Feb. 25, 1993 (Washington: GPO, 1993).
CRS-15
the previous May, completed its work and issued recommendations.69 (The creation
and recommendations of the commission are explained in the succeeding
paragraphs.) The committee also recommended that the Senate consider the
proposals of this Ethics Study Commission as soon as possible and adopt changes
which would enhance public accountability, be fair to Senators and staff, and
minimize the demands on the time of Senators serving on the Select Committee on
Ethics.70
1993-1994 Senate Ethics Study Commission. In 1993, the Senate
established the bipartisan Senate Ethics Study Commission to study the Select
Committee on Ethics and recommend changes.71 The mandate of the 10-member,
bipartisan Senate Ethics Study Commission was (1) to study the rules and procedures
used by the Select Committee on Ethics to investigate and resolve complaints and
allegations against Members, officers, and employees of the Senate; and (2) to
recommend improvements to enhance public confidence in the Senate’s ability to
fulfill fairly its constitutional duty of self-discipline. The “confusing and complex”
procedures of the Select Committee in Ethics, which created the potential for
unfairness and a lack of confidence in the process, was noted by many former
committee members.72 The commission, comprising all six incumbent members of
the Ethics Committee and four former members of the committee, held hearings
during which testimony was heard from former chairs of the committee, attorneys
who had practiced before or were on the staff of the committee, academicians, and
representatives of public organizations with interests in legislative ethics.73
In March 1994, the Senate Ethics Study Commission issued its final report and
recommendations.74 The Senate, however, took no immediate action.
69
Helen Dewar, “Bipartisan Panel to Study Senate’s Ethics Procedures,” The Washington
Post, Mar. 4, 1993, p. A8.
70
U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of
Congress, Final Report of the Senate Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization
of Congress, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 103-215, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 21.
71
S.Res. 111, agreed to in the Senate May 21, 1993, “Authorizing the Senate Ethics Study
Commission,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, May 21, 1993, pp. 10787-10788. See also
Helen Dewar, “Bipartisan Panel to Study Senate Ethics Procedures,” The Washington Post,
Mar. 4, 1993, p. A8.
72
Sen. Robert Smith, “Senate Ethics Procedure Reform Resolution of 1999,” remarks in the
Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 145, Nov. 5, 1999, p. 28841.
73
U.S. Congress, Senate, Ethics Study Commission, Recommending Revisions to the
Procedures of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, hearings, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., May
20, 1993, and June 8, 17, 1993 (Washington, GPO, 1993).
74
U.S. Congress, Senate Ethics Study Commission, Recommending Revisions to the
Procedures of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, report to the Senate Leadership
Pursuant to S.Res. 111, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., S.Prt. 103-71 (Washington: GPO, 1994); and
Stephen Gettinger, “Senate Ethics Revision Process,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly
Report, vol. 54, Mar. 5, 1994, pp. 522-523.
CRS-16
1999 Senate Select Committee on Ethics Procedural Changes. On
November 5, 1999, the Senate adopted most of the recommendations proposed by
the Senate Ethics Study Commission five years earlier (S.Res. 222).75
The principal changes made by the Senate in agreeing to S.Res. 222 included the
following:76
!
Replacing the previous multi-stage process with a single phase
“preliminary inquiry.” Now, if there is substantial evidence of a
violation after the preliminary review, charges are issued and there
may be “adjudicative review” of the evidence. Such a review can
include a hearing. These changes did not affect the ability of outside
groups to file allegations against a Member, officer, or employee of
the Senate.
!
Providing a uniform set of potential sanctions for rules violations to
be used alone or in combination.77 These are (1) financial restitution,
(2) referral to a party conference (regarding seniority or positions of
responsibility), (3) censure, and (4) expulsion. The committee
retained the flexibility to propose other penalties and was authorized
to issue a reprimand to an individual without his or her consent (as
had been required previously) after the opportunity for a hearing and
with the right of appeal to the Senate.
!
Allowing public or private “Letters of Admonition” from the Ethics
Committee. These letters, previously used by the committee, are not
considered formal discipline, but are used to inform Senators about
conduct the committee believes is questionable or inappropriate.
!
Adding financial restitution to the possible sanctions (including
suspension and dismissal) that might be placed on a Senate officer
or employee.
75
“Senate Ethics Procedure Reform Resolution of 1999,” Congressional Record, vol. 145,
Nov. 5, 1999, pp. 28834-28843; Elizabeth Palmer, “Senate Votes to Revamp Its Ethics
Investigations Process,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 59, Nov. 20, 1999,
p. 2772; and Damon Chappie, “Committee Streamlines Senate’s Ethics Procedures,” Roll
Call, Nov, 15, 1999, p. 8.
76
77
The changes adopted in 1999 are still in effect.
These sanctions are similar to ones provided for in existing committee rules, but provided
for the payment of restitution as a penalty and emphasized consistency in the wording in
each type of punishment.
CRS-17
Proposed Changes to the Senate Select
Committee on Ethics
During the past four-plus decades since the establishment of the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct in 1964, Senators and others have considered
alternatives to the present system of enforcing the Senate rules of conduct.78 These
proposals have called for an Office of Public Integrity; independent ethics
commissions, or offices, within the legislative branch, composed of incumbent or
former Members of Congress, retired judges, or private citizens; or a variation of
these ideas.79
The most serious discussions in the past 10 years, however, began in the 109th
Congress (2005-2007) with different bill introductions.80 In March 2006, the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs debated and ultimately
voted against a proposal to establish an independent office to enforce congressional
ethics and lobbying laws. Subsequently, the Senate defeated a similar amendment
to a pending gift and lobbying reform measure (S. 2349).81
After the convening of the 110th Congress (2007-2009), discussions continued
about ethics reform and enforcement.82 On January 18, 2007, during consideration
of the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, the Senate rejected
an amendment to establish the Senate Office of Public Integrity.83
78
For additional information, refer to CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional
Rules of Conduct: A Historical Overview. For a pro-con discussion of creating independent
ethics entities within the legislative branch, as well as the constitutional issues involved,
refer to CRS Report RL33790, “Independent” Legislative Commission or Office for Ethics
and/or Lobbying, by Jack Maskell and R. Eric Petersen.
79
See for example, U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Ethics Reform Task Force on H.
Res. 168, committee print, 105th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1997) p. 6; Glenn
Simpson, “Non-Senators Proposed to Be Ethics Panelists,” Roll Call, Oct. 8, 1991, pp. 1,
27; Dennis Thompson, “Why Congressional Ethics Committees Are Unethical,” The
Brookings Review, vol. 13, no. 4, Fall 1995, pp. 44-48; Norman Ornstein, “Put Congressmen
Emerti on Ethics Panels,” Wall Street Journal, May 28, 1991, p. A22; Norman Ornstein,
“Use Former Members, Staff to Filter Ethics Complaints,” Roll Call, Feb 4, 2004, p. 6; and
“Locking Up the Ghost of Congress Past” (editorial), The New York Times, Mar. 3, 2007,
p. A26.
80
See, for example, S.Con.Res. 82, and S. 2259, 109th Congress.
81
“Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006,” Congressional Record, daily
ed., v. 152, Mar. 28, 2006, pp. S2440-S2254 and S2459; and Jeffrey Birnbaum, “Ethics
Office for Hill Rejected,” The Washington Post, Mar. 3, 2006, pp. A1, A8.
82
“Most Ethical Congress” (editorial), Roll Call , Nov. 27, 2006, p. 4; Elana Schor “Ethics
Reformers in House Push For Independent Panel,” The Hill, Dec. 6, 2006; Carl Hulse,
“Democrats in Congress Consider Outside Ethics Panel,” The New York Times, Dec. 13,
2006, p. A19; and Sen. Barack Obama, “A Chance to Change the Game,” The Washington
Post, Jan. 4, 2007, p. A17.
83
“Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007,” Congressional Record, daily
(continued...)
CRS-18
On January 31, 2007, the leadership in the House of Representatives established
the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement to consider whether the House should
create an “outside” congressional ethics enforcement entity.84 The Senate, however,
has thus far not created any similar study group during the 110th Congress.
On December 19, 2007, the House task force chair, Representative Michael
Capuano, released a report on behalf of several task force members and introduced
H.Res. 895 to amend House rules and create an independent Office of Congressional
Ethics (OCE), composed of six private citizen/board members jointly appointed by
House leaders.85 The measure passed the House on March 11, 2008.86
Under the provisions of H.Res. 895, current House Members, federal
employees, and lobbyists would not be eligible to serve on the board, which could
be composed of private citizens with a wide range of professional experience. Former
Members of Congress and congressional staff as well as former state legislators and
judges have been suggested as types of potential members of this board, whose
responsibility would be to review allegations of misconduct by Members, officers,
and employees of the House and then, if appropriate, to make recommendations to
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for its consideration.87 Any referrals
received by the Standards of Official Conduct Committee would be acted on largely
in accord with the committee’s current rules. However, the committee would be
required to make a public announcement of its disposition of certain referrals within
specific time frame.
The new OCE does not have subpoena power and is prohibited from referring
any case to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct within 60 days
of a primary or general election in which the subject of an investigation is a
candidate.
83
(...continued)
ed., v. 153, Jan. 18, 2007, pp. S743-S744.
84
Rep. Michael E. Capuano, “Dear Colleague” letter, Dec. 19, 2007, [http://www.house.gov/
capuano/news/2007/121907ethics/Dear%20Colleague%20Letter.pdf]; and Susan Davis,
“Pelosi, Boehner Name Eight Members to Ethics Task Force,” Roll Call, Feb. 1, 2007, pp.
3, 22.
85
U .S. House, Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement [http://www.house.gov/capuano/
news/2007/121907ethics/Ethics%20Report.pdf], unpublished report, Dec. 2007; and Drew
Armstrong, “Ethics Task Force Recommendations Pose Challenge for House Leaders,” CQ
Today, Jan. 22, 2008, pp. 5-6.
86
“Providing for the Adoption of H.Res. 895, Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 154,
Mar. 11, 2008, pp. H1515-H1536.
87
Former Members and staff of the House could not serve on the board sooner than one year
after leaving office.
CRS-19
Appendix A. Members of the Senate Select Committee
on Standards and Conduct, 89th-94th Congresses (1965-1977)
Member
Party
State
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
89th Congress (1965-1967)
Stennis, John C.
D
MS
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1967
Monroney, A. S. Mike
D
OK
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1967
McCarthy, Eugene J.
DFLa
MN
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1967
Bennett, Wallace F.
R
UT
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1967
Cooper, John Sherman
R
KY
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1967
Pearson, James B.
R
KS
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1967
90th Congress (1967-1969)
Stennis, John C.
D
MS
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1969
Monroney, A. S. Mike
D
OK
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1969
McCarthy, Eugene J.
DFLa
MN
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1969
Bennett, Wallace F.
R
UT
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1969
Cooper, John Sherman
R
KY
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1969
Pearson, James B.
R
KS
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1969
91st Congress (1969-1971)
Stennis, John C.
D
MS
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1971
McCarthy, Eugene J.
DFLa
MN
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1971
Talmadge, Herman E.
D
GA
February 23, 1970
January 2, 1971
Bennett, Wallace F.
R
UT
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1971
Cooper, John Sherman
R
KY
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1971
Pearson, James B.
R
KS
July 9, 1965
October 29, 1969
Jordan, Len B.
R
ID
October 29, 1969
January 2, 1971
92nd Congress (1971-1973)
Stennis, John C.
D
MS
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1973
Talmadge, Herman E.
D
GA
February 23, 1970
January 2, 1973
Spong, William B., Jr.
D
VA
July 14 1971
January 2, 1973
Bennett, Wallace F.
R
UT
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1973
CRS-20
State
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
Member
Party
Cooper, John Sherman
R
KY
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1973
Jordan, Leonard B.
R
ID
October 29, 1969
January 2, 1973
93rd Congress (1973-1975)
Stennis, John C.
D
MS
July 9, 1965
January 2, 1975
Talmadge, Herman E.
D
GA
February 23, 1970
January 2, 1975
Cannon, Howard W.
D
NV
April 18, 1973
January 2, 1975
Bennett, Wallace F.
R
UT
July 9, 1965
December 20, 1974
Curtis, Carl T.
R
NE
February 23, 1973
January 2, 1975
Brooke, Edward W.
R
MA
February 23, 1973
January 2, 1975
94th Congress (1975-1977)
Cannon, Howard W.
D
NV
April 18, 1973
February 11, 1977
Stennis, John C.
D
MS
July 9, 1965
February 11, 1975
Talmadge, Herman E.
D
GA
February 23, 1970
February 11, 1977
Curtis, Carl T.
R
NE
January 11, 1973
February 11, 1977
Brooke, Edward W.
R
MA
February 23, 1973
February 11, 1977
Young, Milton R.
R
ND
February 7, 1975
February 11, 1977
Source: Garrison Nelson, Committees in the U.S. Congress 1947-1992 (Washington: Congressional
Quarterly, Inc., 1994).
a. Democratic Farmer-Labor Party
CRS-21
Appendix B. Members of the Senate Select Committee
On Ethics, 95th -110th Congresses (1977-2008)
Member
Party State
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
95th Congress (1977-1979)
Stevenson, Adlai E. III
D
IL
February 11, 1977
April 10, 1979
Ribicoff, Abraham A.
D
CT
February 11, 1977
April 10, 1979
Morgan, Robert B.
D
NC
February 11, 1977
April 10, 1979
Schmitt, Harrison H.
R
NM February 24, 1977
April 10, 1979
Tower, John G.
R
TX
February 24, 1977
April 10, 1979
Weicker, Lowell P., Jr.
R
CT
February 24, 1977
April 13, 1978
Pearson, James B.
R
KS
February 28, 1978
March 2, 1978
Mathias, Charles McC., Jr.
R
MD April 13, 1978
April 10, 1979
96th Congress (1979-1981)
Stevenson, Adlai E. III
D
IL
April 10, 1979
October 31, 1979
Morgan, Robert B.
D
NC
April 10, 1979
January 2, 1981
Burdick, Quentin N.
D
ND
April 10, 1979
January 25, 1980
Schmitt, Harrison H.
R
NM April 10, 1979
October 31, 1979
Hatfield, Mark O.
R
OR
April 10, 1979
January 28, 1980
Helms, Jesse A.
R
NC
April 10, 1979
January 6, 1981
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
October 31, 1979
January 2, 1981
Pryor, David H.
D
AR
January 25, 1980
January 2, 1981
Wallop, Malcolm
R
WY October 31, 1979
January 2, 1981
Cochran, Thad
R
MS
January 2, 1981
January 28, 1980
97th Congress (1981-1983)
Wallop, Malcolm
R
WY January 6, 1981
January 3, 1983
Cochran, Thad
R
MS
January 6, 1981
January 21, 1981
Mattingly, Mack
R
GA
January 6, 1981
January 3, 1983
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
January 6, 1981
January 3, 1983
Pryor, David H.
D
AR
January 6, 1981
January 3, 1983
Eagleton, Thomas F.
D
MO January 6, 1981
January 3, 1983
CRS-22
Member
Helms, Jesse A.
Party State
R
NC
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
January 21, 1981
January 3, 1983
98th Congress (1983-1985)
Stevens, Theodore F.
R
AK
January 3, 1983
March 5, 1985
Helms, Jesse A.
R
NC
January 3, 1983
March 5, 1985
Durenberger, David F.
R
MN January 3, 1983
March 5, 1985
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
January 3, 1983
March 5, 1985
Pryor, David H.
D
AR
January 3, 1983
March 5, 1985
Eagleton, Thomas F.
D
MO January 3, 1983
March 5, 1985
99th Congress (1985-1987)
Rudman, Warren B.
R
NH
March 5, 1985
January 6, 1987
Helms, Jesse A.
R
NC
March 5, 1985
January 6, 1987
Kassebaum, Nancy Landon
R
KA
March 5, 1985
January 6, 1987
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
March 5, 1985
January 6, 1987
Pryor, David H.
D
AR
March 5, 1985
January 6, 1987
Eagleton, Thomas F.
D
MO March 5, 1985
January 2, 1987
100th Congress (1987-1989)
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
January 6, 1987
January 2, 1989
Pryor, David H.
D
AR
January 6, 1987
January 2, 1989
Sanford, Terry
D
NC
January 6, 1987
January 2, 1989
Rudman, Warren B.
R
NH
January 6, 1987
January 2, 1989
Helms, Jesse A.
R
NC
January 6, 1987
January 2, 1989
Kassebaum, Nancy Landon
R
KA
January 6, 1987
January 2, 1989
101st Congress (1989-1991)
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
February 2, 1989
January 2, 1991
Pryor, David H.
D
AR
February 2, 1989
January 2, 1991
Sanford, Terry
D
NC
February 2, 1989
January 2, 1991
Rudman, Warren B.
R
NH
February 2, 1989
January 2, 1991
Helms, Jesse A.
R
NC
February 2, 1989
January 2, 1991
Lott, Trent
R
MS
February 2, 1989
January 2, 1991
CRS-23
Member
Party State
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
102nd Congress (1991-1993)
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
March 19, 1991
November 20, 1991
Pryor, David H.a
D
AR
March 19, 1991
May 22, 1991
Sanford, Terryb
D
NC
March 19, 1991
January 2, 1993
Rudman, Warren B.
R
NH
March 19, 1991
January 2, 1993
Lott, Trent
R
MS
March 19, 1991
January 2, 1993
Gorton, Slade
R
WA March 19, 1991
January 2, 1993
Bingaman, Jeffc
D
NM
May 22, 1991
January 2, 1993
Helms, Jessed
R
NC
August 2, 1991
November 20, 1991
Bryan, Richarde
D
NV
August 2, 1991
January 2, 1993
103rd Congress (1993-1995)
Bryan, Richard
D
NV
January 26, 1993
January 2, 1995
Mikulski, Barbara
D
MD January 26, 1993
January 2, 1995
Thomas, Daschle
D
SD
January 26, 1993
January 2, 1995
McConnell, Mitch
R
KY
January 26, 1993
January 2, 1995
Stevens, Ted
R
AK
January 26, 1993
May 19, 1993
Smith, Robert
R
NH
January 26, 1993
January 2, 1995
Craig, Larry
R
ID
May 19,1993
January 2, 1995
104th Congress (1995-1997)
McConnell, Mitch
R
KY
January 11, 1995
January 2, 1997
Smith, Robert
R
NH
January 11, 1995
January 2, 1997
Craig, Larry
R
ID
January 11, 1995
January 2, 1997
Bryan, Richard
D
NV
January 11, 1995
January 23, 1996
Mikulski, Barbara
D
MD January 11, 1995
January 23, 1996
Dorgan, Byron
D
ND
January 11, 1995
January 2, 1997
Reid, Harry
D
NV
January 23, 1996
January 2, 1997
Murray, Patty
D
WA January 23, 1996
January 2, 1997
CRS-24
Member
Party State
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
105th Congress (1997-1999)
Smith, Robert
R
NH
January 9, 1997
January 2, 1999
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
January 9, 1997
January 2, 1999
Sessions, Jeff
R
AL
January 9, 1997
January 2, 1999
Reid, Harry
D
NV
January 9, 1997
January 2, 1999
Murray, Patty
D
WA January 9, 1997
January 2, 1999
Conrad, Kent
D
SND January 9, 1997
January 2, 1999
106th Congress (1999-2001)
Smith, Robertf
R
NH
January 7, 1999
January 2, 2001
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
January 7, 1999
January 2, 2001
Voinovich, George
R
OH
January 7, 1999
January 2, 2001
Reid, Harry
D
NV
January 7, 1999
January 2, 2001
Conrad, Kent
D
ND
January 7, 1999
January 2, 2001
Durbin, Richard
D
IL
January 7, 1999
January 2, 2001
107th Congress (2001-2003)
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
January 25, 2001
January 2, 2003
Voinovich, George
R
OH
January 25, 2001
January 2, 2003
Thomas, Craig
R
WY January 25, 2001
January 2, 2003
Reid, Harryg
D
NV
January 25, 2001
January 2, 2003
Akaka, Daniel
D
HI
January 25, 2001
January 2, 2003
Lincoln, Blanche
D
AR
January 25, 2001
January 2, 2003
Inouye, Danielh
D
HI
February 4, 2002
July 30, 2002
Reed, Jackh
D
RI
February 4, 2002
July 30, 2002
108th Congress (2003-2005)
Voinovich, George
R
OH
January 15, 2003
January 2, 2005
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
January 15, 2003
January 2, 2005
Thomas, Craig
R
WY January 15, 2003
January 2, 2005
Reid, Harry
D
NV
January 2, 2005
January 15, 2003
CRS-25
Member
Party State
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
Akaka, Daniel
D
HI
January 15, 2003
January 2, 2005
Lincoln, Blanche
D
AR
January 15, 2003
January 2, 2005
109th Congress (2005-2007)
Voinovich, George
R
OH
January 6, 2005
January 2, 2007
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
January 6, 2005
January 2, 2007
Thomas, Craig
R
WY January 6, 2005
January 2, 2007
Johnson, Tim
D
SD
January 6, 2005
January 2, 2007
Akaka, Daniel
D
HI
January 6, 2005
January 18, 2006
Pryor, Mark
D
AR
January 6, 2005
January 2, 2007
Salazar, Ken
D
CO
January 18, 2006
January 2, 2007
110th Congress (2007-2009)
Johnson, Timi
D
SD
Boxer, Barbarai
D
CA January 12, 2007
Pryor, Mark
D
AR January 12 , 2007 -
Salazar, Ken
D
CO
Brown, Sherrodj
D
OH April 17, 2007
-
Cornyn, John
R
TX January 12, 2007
-
Roberts, Pat
R
KS January 12, 2007
-
Thomas, Craig
R
WY January 12, 2007
June 4, 2007k
Johnny Isaksonk
R
GA
-
January 12, 2007
January 12, 2007
June 13, 2007
-
-
-
Source: Garrison Nelson, Committees in the U.S. Congress 1947-1992 (Washington: Congressional
Quarterly, Inc., 1994). Information for the 101st -110th Congresses was obtained from various issues
of the Congressional Record.
a. Sen. Pryor left the committee in May 1991, but returned on September 10, 1991, in place of
Senator Bingaman, to serve during the completion of the “Keating Five” investigation. That
investigation ended on November 20, 1991.
b. On August 2, 1991, Sen. Sanford was named chairman of the committee for all matters except the
“Keating Five” investigation.
c. Sen. Bingaman was appointed to serve in place of Sen. Pryor. However, he later declined to
participate in the “Keating Five” investigation, and Sen. Pryor was reappointed for that purpose.
On August 2, 1991, Sen. Bingaman was reappointed to serve for all committee matters except
the “Keating Five” investigation.
d. Sen. Helms was reappointed to serve during the 102nd Congress for the remainder of the “Keating
Five” investigation.
e. Sen. Bryan was appointed to serve for all matters except the “Keating Five” investigation.
CRS-26
f. Sen. Smith became chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Nov. 9,
1999, and Sen. Roberts was appointed chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics the same
day.
g. On June 6, 2000, when the Democrats took control of the Senate, Sen. Reid became chairman of
committee.
h. On Feb. 4, 2002, Sen. Inouye was appointed to chair the committee in matters regarding the
investigation of Sen. Robert Torricelli, and Sen. Reed was appointed to serve in place of Sen.
Akaka for this investigation. All other committee business for the 107th Congress was handled
by the six members originally appointed.
i. On Jan. 12, 2007, Sen. Boxer was named chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics
in Sen. Johnson’s absence because of illness.
j. On Apr. 17, 2007, Sen. Brown was appointed to serve in place of Sen. Salazar only for matters
related to the committee’s preliminary inquiry arising in connection with the firing of a U.S.
attorney in New Mexico.
k. Sen. Thomas died in office on June 4, 2007, and was replaced by Sen. Isakson on June 13, 2007.
Summary
The United States Constitution provides each House of Congress with the sole authority to
establish rules and punish and expel Members. From 1789 to 1964, the Senate dealt individually
with cases of disciplinary action against Members, often forming ad hoc committees to
investigate and make recommendations when acts of wrongdoing were brought to the chamber’s
attention. Events of the 1960s, including the investigation of Secretary to the Majority Robert G.
“Bobby” Baker, for alleged corruption and influence peddling, prompted the creation of a
permanent ethics committee and the writing of a Code of Conduct for Members, officers, and
staff of the Senate.
The Senate Select Committee on Ethics was first established in 1964. This bipartisan, six-member
committee investigates alleged violations of the rules of the Senate and recommends disciplinary
actions. In the 95th Congress (1977-1978), the Senate expanded the committee’s jurisdiction and
altered its procedures to implement revisions to the Senate Code of Official Conduct. Also, to
reflect these changes the committee was renamed the Select Committee on Ethics.
This report briefly outlines the background of ethics enforcement in the Senate, including the
creation of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct and the subsequent renaming of the
committee as the Select Committee on Ethics. The report also provides a brief overview of the
Senate Code of Conduct and on the Select Committee’s current jurisdiction and procedures.
For additional information on ethics in the Senate, please refer to CRS Report RL30764,
Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: An Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus;
CRS Report RL31126, Lobbying Congress: An Overview of Legal Provisions and Congressional
Ethics Rules, by Jack Maskell; and CRS Report 93-875, Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by
the Full Senate Against Members, by Jack Maskell.
Congressional Research Service
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Creating a Permanent Ethics Committee ......................................................................................... 2
Select Committee on Standards and Conduct............................................................................ 2
Select Committee on Ethics....................................................................................................... 4
Senate Code of Conduct .................................................................................................................. 6
Formal Code of Conduct ........................................................................................................... 7
Current Code of Official Conduct ............................................................................................. 9
Jurisdiction....................................................................................................................................... 9
Additions to Jurisdiction.......................................................................................................... 10
Franking Privilege ............................................................................................................. 10
Intelligence Information Disclosure .................................................................................. 10
Acceptance of Foreign Gifts ............................................................................................. 10
Public Financial Disclosure Forms.................................................................................... 10
Fair Employment Practices ............................................................................................... 11
Insider Trading and Financial Disclosure.......................................................................... 11
Current Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................. 12
Procedure ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Tables
Table 1. Standing Rules of the Senate Included in the Code of Official Conduct ........................... 9
Table A-1. Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct Membership ............................. 15
Table B-1. Senate Select Committee on Ethics Membership ........................................................ 17
Appendixes
Appendix A. Membership on the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct,
1965-1976 ................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix B. Membership on the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, 1977-2014....................... 17
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 22
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 22
Congressional Research Service
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Introduction
To ensure that Members of Congress uphold high standards, the United States Constitution
provides sole authority to establish rules and punish and expel Members to the House of
Representatives and the Senate, respectively. Article I, Section 5, clause 2 provides that “Each
House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour,
and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”1
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Senate used its authority to establish ethics rules and to punish
individual Members sparingly.2 Former Senate historian Richard Baker observed that “[f]or
nearly two centuries, a simple and informal code of behavior existed. Prevailing norms of general
decency served as the chief determinants of proper legislative conduct.”3 During that time,
Congress often dealt with ethics issues “on a case-by-case basis, [and then] only with the most
obvious acts of wrongdoing, those clearly ‘inconsistent with the trust and duty of a member.’”4
Events in the early 1960s, including charges of corruption and influence peddling against
Secretary to the Majority Robert G. “Bobby” Baker, prompted the Senate Committee on Rules
and Administration, which had jurisdiction over “[m]atters relating to the payment of money out
of the contingent fund of the Senate or creating a charge upon the same,”5 to hold hearings on
financial and business activities of current and former Members, officers, and employees of the
Senate.6
This report examines the history and evolution of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics,
including the committee’s jurisdiction and investigative procedure. It does not deal with changes
to criminal law (as defined in Title 18, United States Code), with criminal prosecutions of
Members of Congress, or with the specifics of disciplinary cases in the Senate.7
1
U.S. Congress, House, “Article I, Section 5, clause 2,” The Constitution of the United States, 108th Cong., 1st sess.,
H.Doc. 108-96 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 4.
2
Richard Allan Baker, The Senate of the United States: A Bicentennial History (Malabar, FL: Robert K. Krieger
Publishing Company, 1988), p. 109. For more information on Senate censure and expulsion cases, see U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure
Cases: 1793-1990, prepared by Anne M. Butler and Wendy Wolff, U.S. Senate Historical Office, 103rd Cong., 1st sess.,
S.Doc. 103-33 (Washington: GPO, 1995).
3
Richard Baker, “The History of Congressional Ethics,” in Bruce Jennings and Daniel Callahan, eds., Representation
and Responsibility: Exploring Legislative Ethics (New York: Plenum Press, 1985), p. 4. [Hereafter, Baker, “The
History of Congressional Ethics”].
4
Ibid., p. 3.
5
U.S. Congress, Senate, Senate Manual Containing the Standing Rules, Orders, Laws, and Resolutions Affecting the
Business of the United States Senate, 88th Cong., 1st sess., S.Doc. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1963), § 25.1p, p. 37.
6
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules, Authorizing an Investigation into the Financial, Business or Other
Interests or Activities of Present or Former Members, Officers, or Employees of the Senate, Volume 1, hearing pursuant
to S. Res. 212 and S.Res. 367, 89th Cong., 1st sess., February 4, 1965 (Washington: GPO, 1965); and U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on Rules, Authorizing an Investigation into the Financial, Business or Other Interests or Activities
of Present or Former Members, Officers, or Employees of the Senate, Volume 2, hearing pursuant to S. Res. 212 and S.
Res. 367, 89th Cong., 1st sess., February 5, 1965 (Washington: GPO, 1965).
7
For more information on Members indicted or convicted of a felony, see CRS Report RL34716, Status of a Senator
Who Has Been Indicted for or Convicted of a Felony, by Jack Maskell. For more information on the enforcement of
codes of conduct in the House of Representatives and the Senate, see CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Creating a Permanent Ethics Committee
Prior to the 88th Congress (1963-1964), no standard mechanism existed for discipline of Senators.
During the 88th Congress, the Senate created the first ethics committee, the Select Committee on
Standards and Conduct. In the 95th Congress (1977-1978), the Senate changed the committee’s
name to the Committee on Ethics.
Select Committee on Standards and Conduct
Ethics reform became more salient in the Senate after Secretary to the Majority Robert G.
“Bobby” Baker resigned on October 8, 1963, following allegations that he had misused his
official position for personal financial gain.8 Following Mr. Baker’s resignation, the Senate
agreed to a resolution (S.Res. 212) to “inquire into the financial and business interests of any
officer, employee, or former employee of the Senate.”9 The resolution directed the Committee on
Rules and Administration to conduct an investigation into current and former officers’ and
employees’ financial and business interests. The resolution stated,
Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration or any duly authorized
subcommittee thereof is authorized and directed to make a study and investigation with
respect to any financial or business interests or activities of any officer or employee or
former officer or employee of the Senate, for the purpose of ascertaining (1) whether any
such interests or activities have involved conflicts of interest or other impropriety, and (2)
whether additional laws, rules, or regulations are necessary or desirable for the purpose of
prohibiting or restricting any such interests or activities. The Committee shall report to the
Senate at the earliest practicable date the results of its study and investigation, together with
such recommendation as it may deem desirable.10
Pursuant to the S.Res. 212, the Committee on Rules and Administration held a series of hearings
to investigate the general business interests and activities of Senate officials and employees.11 In
the report issued following the hearings, the committee recognized that serious allegations had
been made against a former employee, and that no specific rules or regulations governed the
duties and activities of Members, officers, or employees of the Senate. The committee also
concluded that many of Baker’s outside activities were in conflict with his official duties and
(...continued)
Congressional Rules of Conduct: An Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus.
8
For example, see Sen. Wayne Morse, “Resignation of Robert G. Baker As Secretary of the Majority for the Senate,”
remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 109, part 14 (October 8, 1963), p. 18942.
9
“Inquiry into Financial or Business Interests of any Officer, Employee, or Former Employee of the Senate,”
Congressional Record, vol. 109, part 14 (October 10, 1963), p. 19153.
10
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Financial or Business Interests of Officer or
Employees of the Senate, report pursuant to S.Res. 212, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., July 8, 1964, S.Rept. 88-1175
(Washington: GPO, 1964), p. 5.
11
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Financial or Business Interests of Officers or
Employees of the Senate, hearings pursuant to S.Res. 212, parts 1-27, 88th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., 1963-1964
(Washington: GPO, 1964); and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Construction of the
District of Columbia Stadium, and Matters Related Thereto, hearings pursuant to S.Res. 212 and S.Res. 367, parts
1-13, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., and 89th Cong., 1st sess., 1964-1965 (Washington: GPO, 1964-1965).
Congressional Research Service
2
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
made several recommendations, including adoption of public financial disclosure rules and other
guidelines for Senate employees.12
Following the investigation into Mr. Baker, additions to the Senate rules—calling for public
financial disclosure reports and more controls on staff involvement with Senate campaign
funds—were introduced to implement the committee’s recommendations.13
Additionally, the Committee on Rules and Administration considered the creation of a separate
ethics committee. In a committee report on proposed amendments to Senate rules, Senator John
Sherman Cooper discussed an amendment he proposed, but which did not pass the committee, to
create a select committee on standards and conduct.
I regret that a resolution which I offered was rejected by the majority party representation on
the committee. The resolution which I offered would have established a select committee on
standards and conduct, composed of six members, three from each of the parties, to be
appointed by the President of the Senate. This committee would be authorized to receive
complaints of unethical, improper, illegal conduct of members, officers, or employees of the
Senate, to make investigation of allegations of such conduct, to propose rules and
regulations, to give advisory opinions, and to make recommendations to the Senate regarding
disciplinary action if required.
I believe the establishment of such a committee made up of distinguished Members of the
Senate would act as a deterrent upon possible violations, and in the exercise of jurisdiction,
would have the confidence of the Senate and the public. I do not consider that such a special
select committee should be considered as a policing committee, but one which, as I have
said, would deter possible violations and deal with them with utmost dispatch and fairness.14
On July 1, 1964, Senator B. Everett Jordan filed a resolution (S.Res. 338) to amend the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and Administration and allow the committee
to investigate every alleged violation of the rules of the Senate, and to make appropriate
findings of fact and conclusions with respect thereto after according to any individual
concerned due notice and opportunity for hearing. In any case in which the committee
determines that any such violation has occurred, it shall be the duty of the committee to
recommend to the Senate appropriate disciplinary action, including reprimand, censure,
suspension from office or employment, or expulsion from office or employment.15
Consideration of S.Res. 338 began on July 24, 1964.16 During debate, Senator Cooper proposed
an amendment similar to his proposed amendment in the Committee on Rules and
12
Ibid, pp. 63-67.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Proposed Rules XLI and XLII to the Standing Rules
of the Senate, report to accompany S.Res. 337, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 88-1125 (Washington: GPO, 1964).
14
Ibid., p. 13.
15
Sen. B. Everett Jordan, “Amendment of Rule XXV, Relating to the Jurisdiction of Committee on Rules and
Administration – Report of a Committee (S.Rept. No. 1147),” Congressional Record, vol. 110, part 12 (July 1, 1964),
p. 15661. See also “Resolution Amendment of Rule XXV Standing Rules of the Senate Relative to the Jurisdiction of
the Committee on Rules and Administration,” Congressional Record, vol. 110, part 12 (July 1, 1964), p. 15661; and
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Amending Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate Relative to the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and Administration, report to accompany S.Res. 338, 88th
Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 88-1147 (Washington: GPO, 1964).
16
The resolution had previously been passed over when it was called up from the Senate calendar. “Bills and Joint
(continued...)
13
Congressional Research Service
3
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Administration. The amendment proposed to remove jurisdiction over ethical issues from the
Committee on Rules and Administration and create a permanent, bipartisan Select Committee on
Standards and Conduct.17 In proposing his amendment, Senator Cooper summarized why he
thought the Senate should create a select committee instead of granting disciplinary authority to
the Committee on Rules and Administration.
First, in the event that an investigation into the affairs of a Member of the Senate or an
employee becomes necessary, it is to give assurance that the investigation would be complete
and, so far as possible, would be accepted by the Senate and by the public as being complete.
Second—and this is important to all Members and to all employees of the Senate—it is to
provide that an investigation, which could touch their rights and their offices as well as their
honor, would be conducted by a select committee which by reason of its experience and its
judgment, would give assurance that their right and honor would be justly considered.18
Senator Cooper’s amendment was adopted by a vote of 50 to 33.19 Subsequently, the Senate
agreed to S.Res. 338, as amended, to create a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct and
for the first time created a continuing internal disciplinary body.20
Members of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct were first appointed in July 1965,
allowing the Committee on Rules and Administration to complete the Baker investigation.21 In
October 1965, the committee elected a chair and vice chair,22 appointed its first staff, and began
developing standards of conduct for the Senate.23
Select Committee on Ethics
On March 11, 1975, Senator Adlai Stevenson introduced S.Res. 109 to “establish a temporary
select committee to study the Senate committee system.”24 Agreed to in March 1976, the
temporary select committee held hearings in July and September.25 Among items considered was
(...continued)
Resolution Passed Over,” Congressional Record, vol. 110, part 12 (July 2, 1964), p. 15794.
17
Sen. John Cooper, “Amendment of Rules XXV Relating to Jurisdiction of Committee on Rules and Administration,”
Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 110, part 13 (July 24, 1964), pp. 16929-16940.
18
Ibid., pp. 16929-16930.
19
Ibid., pp. 16938-16939.
20
Ibid., p. 16939.
21
“Announcement of the Appointment of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct,” Congressional Record,
vol. 111, part 12 (July 9, 1965), p. 16179. Senators John Stennis, Mike Monroney, Eugene McCarthy, Wallace Bennett,
John Cooper, and James Pearson were appointed to the committee.
22
Senator John Stennis was elected chair and Senator Wallace Bennett was elected vice-chair. Sen. Stephen Young,
“The Senate Ethics Committee,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 112, part 12 (July 14, 1966), pp.
15658-15659.
23
U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Senate Ethics Manual, 2003 Edition, 108th Cong., 1st sess.,
S.Pub. 108-1 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 10. [Hereafter, Senate Ethics Manual].
24
Sen. Adlai Stevenson, “Senate Resolution 109 – Submission of a Resolution to Establish a Temporary Select
Committee to Study the Senate Committee System,” Congressional Record, vol. 121, part 5 (March 11, 1975), pp.
6031-6037.
25
U.S. Congress, Senate Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System, Senate Committee
System, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., July 20-22, 1976 (Washington: GPO, 1976); and U.S. Congress, Senate Temporary Select
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
the combination of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct and the Committee on Rules
and Administration. In a letter from Senator Howard Cannon, chair of the Select Committee on
Standards, the ethics committee expressed opposition to this idea. In part, the letter read,
The Select Committee on Standards and Conduct took note of the tentative decision of your
Committee to recommend the consolidation of this Committee with the Committee on Rules
and Administration. While we are mindful of the promised benefit of reducing the number of
Committees which Senators must attend, we strongly believe that your decision would
fatally damage any usefulness our Committee might have as well as to impugn any system of
ethics in the Senate.
By its very nature it is indispensable to an ethics committee of the Congress to be bipartisan
in membership, to conduct any worthy investigation without control of its budget by any
other committee, to be served by a nonpartisan staff, to advice and counsel with Senators,
and to exercise prudent judgment in the conduct of its business. Consolidation of any ethics
committee with a more-normal type of committee is likely to destroy all of these
characteristics and to overwhelm any ethics identity. Unlike other committees, moreover, the
Senate Committee on Standards and Conduct is mandated to directly assist the Senate in the
discharge of a Constitutional responsibility.26
Subsequently, the temporary select committee recommended that the functions of the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct should be combined with the Committee on Rules and
Administration.27
While no further action was taken by the 94th Congress (1975-1976), the issue was readdressed
during the 95th Congress (1977-1978). In a report on S.Res. 4, a resolution to amend the Senate
committee system, the Committee on Rules and Administration rejected the idea of combining the
Committee on Standards with the Committee on Rules and Administration and instead
recommended establishment of a newly constituted bipartisan ethics committee to demonstrate to
the public the “seriousness with which the Senate views congressional conduct.”28
In February 1977, the Senate agreed to S.Res. 4 and created the permanent Select Committee on
Ethics to replace the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct.29 Initially, membership on the
new select committee was limited to six years. In the 96th Congress (1979-1980), the Senate
adopted S.Res. 271, and removed the six-year service limitation.30
(...continued)
Committee to Study the Senate Committee System, Senate Committee System, Part 2, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., September
14 and 15, 1976 (Washington: GPO, 1976).
26
U.S. Congress, Senate Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System, Senate Committee
System, Part 2, hearing, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., September 14-15, 1976 (Washington: GPO, 1976), pp. 159-160.
27
U.S. Congress, Senate Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System, First Report with
Recommendation, Structure of the Senate Committee System: Jurisdictions, Numbers and Sizes, and Limitations on
Membership and Chairmanships, Referral Procedures, and Scheduling, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., November 15, 1976,
S.Rept. 94-1395 (Washington: GPO, 1976), pp. 95-96.
28
U.S. Congress, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, Committee System Reorganization Amendments of
1977, report to accompany S.Res. 4, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-2 (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 4-5.
29
“Senate Committee Reorganization,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 3 (February 1, 1977), p. 2886.
30
“Elimination of Certain Requirements for Membership on the Select Committee on Ethics,” Congressional Record,
vol. 125, part 23 (October 31, 1979), p. 30266.
Congressional Research Service
5
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Senate Code of Conduct
In the 1940s, public criticism regarding potential conflicts of interest by Members of Congress
supplementing their income from speeches and outside activities led to concern over the lack of
disclosure of Members’ finances.31 In 1946, Senator Wayne Morse introduced the first public
financial disclosure legislation to require annual, public financial disclosure reports by Senators
(S.Res. 306).32 In remarks on the introduction of the resolution, Senator Morse defended
Members’ right to earn outside income, but believed that the American people were entitled to
know about alternate income sources. Commenting on the resolution’s purpose, Senator Morse
stated,
I may say that my resolution is bottomed upon the very sound philosophical principle
enunciated by Plutarch that Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. Likewise, I feel that, so
far as the public’s evaluation of Members of the Senate is concerned, they must be above
suspicion. Hence, I think my resolution which calls for the filing with the Secretary of the
Senate of all sources and amounts of senatorial income is in keeping with the public’s right
to know what influences may possibly be brought to bear upon Members of the Senate in the
performance of their legislative duties.33
No action was taken on Senator Morse’s proposal.
In 1958, Congress established the first Code of Ethics for Government Service (Code of Ethics).34
Initially proposed in 1951 by Representative Charles Bennett, the Code of Ethics was adopted
following a House investigation of presidential chief of staff Sherman Adams, who was alleged to
have received gifts from an industrialist being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission.35
The Code of Ethics for Government Service standards continue to be recognized as ethical
guidance in the House and Senate. The Code of Ethics is not legally binding, however, because it
was adopted by congressional resolution, not by law.36
31
For example, see Joseph S. Clark, “Some Ethical Problems of Congress,” Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, Ethics in America: Norms and Deviations, vol. 363 (January 1966), pp. 12-22.
32
Sen. Wayne Morse, “Reports by Senators on Sources of Outside Income,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional
Record, vol. 92, part 8 (July 23, 1946), p. 9741.
33
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Financial or Business Interests of Officers or
Employees of the Senate, hearings pursuant to S.Res. 212, part 23, 88th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., May 27, 1964
(Washington: GPO, 1964), pp. 2021-2027. Senator Morse continued to introduce versions of a financial disclosure
resolution through the 1960s. Ultimately, Senator Morse attempted to expand disclosure requirements to all three
branches of government.
34
72 Stat. B12, H.Con.Res. 175, July 11, 1958. See also “Code of Ethics For Government Service,” Congressional
Record, vol. 103, part 12 (August 28, 1957), p. 16297; and “Code of Ethics For Government Service,” Congressional
Record, vol. 104, part 10 (July 11, 1958), p. 13556.
35
Rep. Charles Bennett, “Code of Ethics for Government Service,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol.
97, part 5 (June 26, 1951), pp. 7176-7178; and testimony of Rep. Charles Bennett, in U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service, Code of Ethics For Government Service, hearings, 84th Cong., 2nd sess., March 29,
1956 (Washington: GPO, 1956), pp. 3-5.
36
Because the code was adopted by concurrent resolution rather than statute, it does not have the force of law and
technically expired at the end of the Congress adopting it. The Code of Ethics for Government Service, however, is
cited by many House and Senate investigations. For example, see U.S. Congress, House 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, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 108-722 (Washington: GPO,
2004), p. 38; and U. S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Korean Influence Investigation, report, 95th
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
In October 1965, as one of its first actions, the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct
recommended rules of conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the Senate.37 In March
1968, the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct reported a resolution (S.Res. 266) making
four additions to the Standing Rules of the Senate.38 After several days of debate, the Senate
adopted a new code of conduct.39 The four areas covered by the new code of conduct were (1)
outside employment of officers and employees, (2) raising and permissible uses of campaign
funds, (3) political fund-raising activities of Senate staff, and (4) annual financial disclosures by
senatorial candidates as well as Members, officers, and designated employees of the Senate.40
Formal Code of Conduct
Following the Watergate scandal in the Nixon Administration, reforms “such as electoral changes,
designed to prevent the recurrence of the Watergate type of offense” were initiated in the
executive branch.41 Subsequently, the Senate began to examine their own activities and
behavior.42 On January 18, 1977, Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd and Minority Leader
Howard Baker jointly introduced S.Res. 36, to establish a temporary Select Committee on
Official Conduct.43 As part of a larger discussion on raising salaries for all federal employees,
Senator Baker expressed his belief that establishing a formal code of conduct was an essential
piece of raising government salaries.
The increase in compensation for Members of Congress will, no doubt, be considered and
voted upon in the very near future. It is imperative, therefore, that prompt attention be given
to questions relating to ethical conduct and financial disclosure.
For this reason, the distinguished majority leader and I have agreed to propose the
establishment of an ad hoc committee to study all questions relating to a Senate code of
conduct. The committee will have 15 members, including a chairman and vice chairman, of
which eight will be of the majority party and seven of the minority party. It will be instructed
(...continued)
Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rept. 95-1314 (Washington: GPO, 1975), pp. 5-6.
37
Work on the first code of conduct began in 1965 and was interrupted by several disciplinary cases, one of the cases
resulted in the June 1967 censure of a Senator for the conversion of campaign funds to personal use. For more
information, see U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Standards of Conduct for
Members of the Senate, Officers and Employees of the Senate, report to accompany S.Res. 266, 90th Cong., 2nd sess.,
S.Rept. 90-1015 (Washington: GPO, 1968), p. 3; and “Seating and Disciplining Members,” in Guide to Congress, 5th
ed., vol. II (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 2000), pp. 930-931.
38
U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Standards of Conduct for Members of the
Senate, Officers and Employees of the Senate, report to accompany S.Res. 266, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 90-1015
(Washington: GPO, 1968).
39
“Senatorial Standards of Conduct,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 114, part 6 (March 19, 1968),
pp. 6941-6943 and 6948-6960; “Standards of Conduct,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, part 6 (March 20, 1968), pp.
7129-7134 and 7137-7154; “Standards of Conduct,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, part 6 (March 21, 1968), pp.
7249-7279; and “Standards of Conduct,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, part 6 (March 22, 1968), pp. 7369-7383 and
7388-7408.
40
Senate Ethics Manual, p. 124.
41
Leroy N. Rieselbach, “In the Wake of Watergate: Congressional Reform?,” The Review of Politics, vol. 36, no. 3
(July 1974), pp. 371-372.
42
Ibid., p. 391.
43
“Establishment of Special Committee to Propose a Code of Conduct,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 2
(January 18, 1977), pp. 1361-1363.
Congressional Research Service
7
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
to study all matters relating to the standards and conduct of Members of the Senate and to
make its report and recommendations no later than March 1.
In this manner, Mr. President, I believe that the Senate can proceed to adoption of an
equitable code of conduct as quickly as possible and with the benefit of the ad hoc
committee’s report.44
S.Res. 36 was adopted by unanimous consent.
The Select Committee on Official Conduct held hearings in February 197745 and issued a final
report on March 10.46 The Select Committee reported a resolution (S.Res. 110) to amend the
Code of Conduct and propose additions to the Standing Rules of the Senate (then numbered XLII
to L), which would become the Code of Official Conduct. The proposed rules changes included
the first public financial disclosure requirements for Senators and officers and employees of the
Senate; limits on gifts, outside earnings, and the use of the frank;47 and prohibited unofficial
office accounts and lame-duck foreign travel. There was also a provision prohibiting
discrimination in staff employment.48
On April 1, 1977, S.Res. 110 was agreed to and the Select Committee recommendations were
adopted.49
In 2007, pursuant to the Honest Leadership and Open Government, several sections of the Senate
Code of Official Conduct were amended.50 These included placing restrictions on former Senators
and senior staff who become federally registered lobbyists;51 requiring disclosure by Senators and
44
Sen. Howard Baker, “Establishment of Special Committee to Propose a Code of Conduct,” remarks in the Senate,
Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 2 (January 18, 1977), p. 1362.
45
U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on Official Conduct, Senate Code of Conduct, hearing on S.Res. 36, 95th
Cong., 1st sess., February 1 and 2, 1977 (Washington: GPO, 1977).
46
U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on Official Conduct, Senate Code of Official Conduct, report to
accompany S.Res. 110, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-49 (Washington: GPO, 1977).
47
For more information on the congressional franking privilege, see CRS Report RS22771, Congressional Franking
Privilege: Background and Recent Legislation, by Matthew Eric Glassman; CRS Report RS22771, Congressional
Franking Privilege: Background and Recent Legislation, by Matthew Eric Glassman; and CRS Report RL34274,
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change, by Matthew Eric Glassman.
48
U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on Official Conduct, Senate Code of Official Conduct, report to
accompany S.Res. 110, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-49 (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 2-3. Title II of S.Res. 110
created procedures for the Select Committee on Ethics. Title III recommended that the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Finance, the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs conduct studies addressing issues identified by
the Select Committee, but that the committee did not have time to address. “For example, in the course of studying the
use of “unofficial office accounts” and the resulting problems, the Committee concluded that the uses of such accounts
were closely tied to relatively narrow restrictions on permissible uses of official allowances. For that reason, the
Committee is recommending that the Committees on Rules and Appropriations study the adequacy and permissible
uses of official allowances and report their recommendations to the Senate.”
49
“Official Conduct Amendments of 1977,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 8 (April 1, 1977), pp. 10044-10068.
50
P.L. 110-81, 121 Stat. 735, September 14, 2007.
51
For more information on post-employment restrictions, see CRS Report R42728, Post-Employment, “Revolving
Door,” Laws for Federal Personnel, by Jack Maskell.
Congressional Research Service
8
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
staff of post-employment job negotiations; implementing protections against Senators from
influencing hiring decisions based on political affiliation; and amending the Senate gift rules.52
Current Code of Official Conduct
The current Senate Code of Official Conduct can be found in Rules 34 through 43 of the Standing
Rules of the Senate.53 Additionally, federal statutes contain numerous provisions which prohibit
or restrict certain activities by Members and employees. Discussion of the prohibitions and
restrictions pursuant to federal law are included in the Senate Ethics Manual. Table 1 provides a
list of Standing Rules of the Senate that are included in the Code of Official Conduct.
Table 1. Standing Rules of the Senate Included in the Code of Official Conduct
Rule
Description
RULE XXXIV
Public Financial Disclosure
RULE XXXV
Gifts
Rule XXXVI
Outside Earned Income
Rule XXXVII
Conflict of Interest
Rule XXXVIII
Official Accounts
Rule XXXIX
Foreign Travel
Rule XL
Franking Privilege, Radio, and T.V.
Rule XLI
Political Fund Activity
Rule XLII
Equal Employment Opportunity
Rule XLIII
Representation by Members
Source: U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate Handbook, 109th
Cong., 2nd sess., November 30, 2006 (http://webster/rules/rules.cfm?page=handbook), pp. I-15. Webster is the
internal website for the United States Senate. It is only available to Senate and Senate committee offices. Text of
the Standing Rules of the Senate are contained in the Senate Manual, §§ 34-43, pp. 60-89.
Jurisdiction
Pursuant to S.Res. 338 (88th Congress), the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was
given the authority to (1) investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the
Senate; (2) investigate violations of laws, rules, and regulations of the Senate relating to the
conduct of Members, officers, and employees in their official duties; (3) recommend disciplinary
action, when appropriate; and (4) recommend additional Senate rules to insure proper conduct.54
52
For more information on Senate gift rules, see CRS Report RS22231, The Acceptance of Gifts of Free Meals by
Members of Congress, by Jack Maskell.
53
U.S. Congress, Senate, Senate Manual Containing the Standing Rules, Orders, Laws, and Resolutions Affecting the
Business of the United States Senate, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Doc. 110-1 (Washington, GPO, 2008), §§ 34-43, pp. 6089. [Hereafter, Senate Manual].
54
S.Res. 338 (88th Congress), adopted on July 24, 1964. See “Proposed Amendment of Rule XXV of the Standing
Rules of the Senate Relative to the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and Administration,” Congressional Record,
vol. 110, part 13 (July 24, 1964), pp. 16929-16940; and Senate Manual, §§ 77-80, pp. 128-137.
Congressional Research Service
9
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Following the creation of the Select Committee on Ethics, the Senate adopted S.Res. 110 (95th
Congress) and transferred the jurisdiction of the former Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct and made the new committee responsible for enforcing and interpreting the Senate Code
of Official Conduct.55
Additions to Jurisdiction
Since 1973, several additions have been made to the Select Committee on Ethics’ jurisdiction.
The additions have included use of the frank, disclosure of intelligence material, acceptance of
foreign gifts, administration of public financial disclosure forms, and enforcement of fair
employment practices.
Franking Privilege
In 1973, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 93-191) clarifying the proper use of the franking
privilege by Members of Congress and authorizing the Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct to provide assistance and counsel to Senators and staff on the use of the frank.56
Intelligence Information Disclosure
When the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was created in 1976, the Ethics Committee
was given specific jurisdiction to investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence
information by a Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate and to report to the Senate on any
substantiated allegation.57
Acceptance of Foreign Gifts
In August 1977, following the enactment of P.L. 95-105 (FY1978 Foreign Relations
Authorization Act), which amended the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, the Select
Committee on Ethics was designated the “employing agency” for the Senate and was authorized
to issue regulations governing the acceptance by Senators and staff of gifts, trips, and decorations
from foreign governments.58
Public Financial Disclosure Forms
In August 1979, the Select Committee on Ethics was given responsibility for administering the
Senate public financial disclosure requirements contained in the Ethics in Government Act of
1978.59 Pursuant to amendments in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the Ethics Committee was
55
U.S. Congress, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, Committee System Reorganization Amendments of
1977, report to accompany S.Res. 4, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-1 (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 4-5; and “Official
Conduct Amendments of 1977,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 8 (April 1, 1977), pp. 10044-10068.
56
P.L. 93-191; 87 Stat. 737, December 18, 1973.
57
“Proposed Standing Committee on Intelligence Activities,” Congressional Record, vol. 122, part 11 (May 13, 1976),
p. 13992.
58
P.L. 95-105; 91 Stat. 863, August 17, 1977.
59
5 U.S.C. app. §§ 101-111.
Congressional Research Service
10
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
named as the “supervising ethics office” for laws governing gifts to federal employees60 and gifts
by employees to their supervisors.61
Fair Employment Practices
In 1991, Title III (Government Employee Rights Act of 1991) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991
established the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices. The Office of Fair Employment
Practices was designed to adjudicate discrimination complaints and gave the Select Committee on
Ethics jurisdiction to review, upon request, decisions of the office.62 In 1995, authority to review
discrimination cases was transferred to the Office of Compliance with the passage of the
Congressional Accountability Act (CAA).63 The Ethics Committee continues to have jurisdiction
over disciplinary cases that could result from an Office of Compliance investigation under Senate
Rule 42.64
Insider Trading and Financial Disclosure
On April 4, 2012, the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act) was passed to
affirm that no exemption exists from “insider trading” laws and regulations for Members of
Congress and congressional employees.65 Pursuant to the Act, the Senate Select Committee on
Ethics is required to:
issue interpretive guidance of the relevant rules of each chamber, including rules on conflicts
of interest and gifts, clarifying that a Member of Congress and an employee of Congress may
not use nonpublic information derived from such person’s position as a Member of Congress
or employee of Congress or gained from the performance of such person’s official
responsibilities as a means for making a private profit.66
60
5 U.S.C. § 7353.
5 U.S.C. § 7351.
62
P.L. 102-166; 105 Stat. 1088-1092, November 21, 1991; and “Civil Rights Act of 1991,” Congressional Record, vol.
137, part 20 (October 30, 1991), pp. 29018-29020.
63
P.L. 104-1, 109 Stat. 3, January 23, 1995; 2 U.S.C. § 1302. The Congressional Accountability Act applied 11 laws to
the legislative branch, from which it had previously been exempt. These laws are: Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.); Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.); Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. § 621
et seq.); Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. § 2611 et seq.); Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.); Title 5, Chapter 71 of the United States Code (federal service labor-management
relations); Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq.); Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.); Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.), and Title 38, Chapter
43 of the United States Code (veterans’ employment and re-employment).
64
U.S. Congress, Senate, “Rule XLII – Employment Practices,” Senate Manual Containing the Standing Rules, Orders,
Laws, and Resolutions Affecting the Business of the United States Senate, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Doc. 110-1
(Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 88.Senate Manual, § 42, p. 14; and Senate Ethics Manual, p. 14.
65
P.L. 112-105, 126 Stat. 291, April 4, 2012. The STOCK Act has been amended three times to change the effective
date for financial disclosure forms required under the Act. First, P.L. 112-173 (126 Stat. 1310, August 16, 2012)
extended the filing date to September 30, 2012. Second, P.L. 112-178 (126 Stat. 1408, September 28, 2012) extended
the required filing date to December 8, 2012. Finally, P.L. 112-207 (126 Stat. 1495, December 7, 2012) extended the
required filing date to April 15, 2013. For a more detailed analysis of the STOCK Act, see CRS Report R42495, The
STOCK Act, Insider Trading, and Public Financial Reporting by Federal Officials, by Jack Maskell.
66
P.L. 112-105, sec. 3; 5 U.S.C. app. 101 note prec.
61
Congressional Research Service
11
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Pursuant to the STOCK Act, the Select Committee on Ethics has issued two sets of guidance on
the implementation of the law. The first, issued on June 15, 2012, provided a summary of STOCK
Act requirements for Senate Staff,67 reminders of periodic transaction and financial disclosure
requirements, and disclosure forms.68 The second, issued on December 4, 2012, provided specific
guidance on insider trading restrictions under securities laws and Senate ethics rules.69
Current Jurisdiction
Pursuant to changes made since 1977, the Select Committee on Ethics currently has jurisdiction
over the following areas:
1. receive complaints and investigate allegations of improper conduct which may
reflect upon the Senate, violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of
Official Conduct, and violations of rules and regulations of the Senate, relating to
the conduct of individuals in the performance of their duties as Members of the
Senate, or as officers or employees of the Senate, and to make appropriate
findings of fact and conclusions with respect thereto;
2. recommend, when appropriate, disciplinary action against Members and staff;70
3. recommend rules or regulations necessary to insure appropriate Senate standards
of conduct;
4. report violations of any law to the proper Federal and State authorities;
5. regulate the use of the franking privilege in the Senate;
6. investigate unauthorized disclosures of intelligence information;
7. implement the Senate public financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in
Government Act;
8. regulate the receipt and disposition of gifts from foreign governments received
by Members, officers, and employees of the Senate;
9. render advisory opinions on the application of Senate rules and laws to Members,
officers, and employees;
67
U.S. Congress, Senate, Select Committee on Ethics, Stock Act Requirements for Senate Staff, 112th Cong., 2nd sess.,
June 15, 2012, at http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=3478144e-32c3-4bed-bb77a48bdfe65dc7.
68
A list of all documents related to the June 15, 2012, guidance can be found, at http://www.ethics.senate.gov/
public/index.cfm/guidance?ID=ddf8731f-2602-4525-910b-9253ea257db5.
69
U.S. Senate, Senate, Select Committee on Ethics, Restrictions on Insider Trading Under Securities Laws and Ethics
Rules, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., December 4, 2012, at http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?
File_id=8c923399-2dc0-4ef6-a0d2-9ef564fc7038.
70
In addition to bringing matters to the full Senate for expulsion, censure, or reprimand, the Committee, pursuant to
S.Res. 338 (88th Congress) sec. 2(a)(3) and 2(d)(3), as amended by S.Res. 222 (106th Congress), also has the authority
to issue, on its own, “letters of admonition” for misconduct not warranting full Senate discipline (i.e., “if a violation is
inadvertent, technical or otherwise of deminimis nature” [see Senate Ethics Manual, p. 15]). For more information on
“Letters of Admonition,” see Committee Rules 3(g)(2) and 4(g)(2)(iii) and (iv) in U.S. Congress, Senate, Select
Committee on Ethics, Rules of Procedure, 111th Cong., 2nd sess. S.Prt. 111-53 (http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/
pdffiles/small_books/RulesOfProcedure.pdf), and CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional Rules of
Conduct: An Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus.
Congressional Research Service
12
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
10. for complaints filed under the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991
respecting conduct occurring prior to January 23, 1996, review, upon request, any
decision of the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices;71
11. develop and implement programs for Members, officers, and employees to
educate them about standards of conduct applicable in the performance of their
official duties;72
12. “conduct ongoing ethics training and awareness programs for Members of the
Senate and Senate staff”;73 and
13. issue an annual report on the number of alleged violations of Senate rules
received from any source, including the number raised by a Senator or staff of the
committee, and including the number of allegations dismissed or on which the
committee took the specific actions.74
Procedure
Procedures for the Select Committee on Ethics are established pursuant to S.Res. 338 (88th
Congress), as amended; P.L. 93-191;75 S.Res. 400 (94th Congress);76 and 5 U.S.C. § 7342.77 The
Ethics Committee may initiate an inquiry or investigate allegations brought by Senators, Senate
officers, Senate staff, or outside individuals and groups. While the committee does not have
formal procedural requirements for filing a complaint, the committee can issue public statements
regarding a specific inquiry. If the committee chooses not to issue a public statement, all
allegations are treated confidentially and the committee has a practice of neither confirming nor
denying that a matter is before the committee. “Upon completion of its investigative process, the
Committee may recommend to the Senate or party conference an appropriate sanction for a
violation or improper conduct, including, for Senators, censure, expulsion, or party discipline and,
for staff members, termination of employment.”78
71
Senate Ethics Manual, p. 4.
Senate Ethics Manual, p. 17; and “Official Conduct Amendments of 1977,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 8
(April 1, 1977), pp. 10044-10068.
73
P.L. 110-81, sec. 553, 121 Stat. 773, September 14, 2007; 2 U.S.C. § 72a-1h.
74
P.L. 110-81, sec. 554, 121 Stat. 773, September 14, 2007; 2 U.S.C. § 72a-1i.
75
P.L. 93-191, 87 Stat. 737, December 18, 1973. P.L. 93-191 amended then current law on franked mail and required
that the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct (now the Select Committee on Ethics) provide “guidance,
assistance, advice, and counsel, through advisory opinions or consultations, in connection with eh mailing or
contemplated mailing of franked mail….” For more information on franked mail, see CRS Report RS22771,
Congressional Franking Privilege: Background and Recent Legislation, by Matthew Eric Glassman and CRS Report
RL34274, Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change, by Matthew Eric Glassman.
76
S.Res. 400 (94th Congress), restricted the unauthorized disclosure of intelligence information. The Select Committee
on Ethics was specifically tasked “to investigate any unamortized disclosure of intelligence information by a Members,
officer or employee of the Senate….” For more information, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration, Proposed Standing Committee on Intelligence Activities, report to accompany S.Res. 400, 94th Cong.,
2nd sess., April 29, 1976, S.Rept. 94-470 (Washington: GPO, 1976), p. 45; “Proposed Standing Committee on
Intelligence Activities,” debate in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 122, part 12 (May 19, 1976), pp. 1464314679.
77
5 U.S.C. § 7342 cover the receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations given to federal employees as
defined by 5 U.S.C. § 2105, including Members of Congress.
78
Senate Ethics Manual, p. 4. For a detailed Select Committee procedures, see U.S. Congress, Senate Select
(continued...)
72
Congressional Research Service
13
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
In 1977, the Senate agreed to S.Res. 110, which created the Code of Official Conduct. Title II of
S.Res. 110 amended S.Res. 338, the 1964 resolution that created the procedures of the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct, which became the Select Committee on Ethics. The
amendments required the Select Committee to receive complaints and investigate alleged
violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct and to publish necessary regulations to
implement the code. Title II also required the publishing of advisory opinions in the
Congressional Record, if requested by specified individuals.79
(...continued)
Committee on Ethics, Rules of Procedure, committee print, adopted February 23, 1978, revised November 1999,
Reprinted March 2007, 110th Cong., 1st sess., S.Prt. 110-17 (Washington: GPO, 2007). Rules of Procedure has
historically been printed on a yearly basis, with the most recent reprinting in 2007. For more information on
enforcement of rules of conduct, see CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: An
Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus.
79
U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on Official Conduct, Senate Code of Official Conduct, report to
accompany S.Res. 110, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-49 (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 2-3.
Congressional Research Service
14
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Appendix A. Membership on the Senate Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct, 1965-1976
Created in the 89th Congress (1965-1966), a total of 14 Senators served on the Senate Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct prior to its being disbanded with the creation of the Senate
Select Committee on Ethics in the 95th Congress (1977-1978). Table A-1 provides a list of all
Members who served on the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, their party
affiliation, and their state. Majority party Members are listed first.
Table A-1. Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct Membership
Member
Party
State
89th Congress (1965-1966)
Stennis, John C.
D
MS
Monroney, A. S. Mike
D
OK
McCarthy, Eugene J.
DFLa
MN
Bennett, Wallace F.
R
UT
Cooper, John Sherman
R
KY
Pearson, James B.
R
KS
90th Congress (1967-1968)
Stennis, John C.
D
MS
Monroney, A. S. Mike
D
OK
McCarthy, Eugene J.
DFLa
MN
Bennett, Wallace F.
R
UT
Cooper, John Sherman
R
KY
Pearson, James B.
R
KS
91st Congress (1969-1970)
Stennis, John C.
D
MS
McCarthy, Eugene J.
DFLa
MN
Talmadge, Herman E.
D
GA
Bennett, Wallace F.
R
UT
Cooper, John Sherman
R
KY
Pearson, James B.
R
KS
Jordan, Leonard B.b
R
ID
92nd Congress (1971-1972)
Stennis, John C.
D
MS
Talmadge, Herman E.
D
GA
Spong, William B., Jr.
D
VA
Congressional Research Service
15
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Member
Party
State
Bennett, Wallace F.
R
UT
Cooper, John Sherman
R
KY
Jordan, Leonard B.
R
ID
93rd Congress (1973-1974)
Stennis, John C.
D
MS
Talmadge, Herman E.
D
GA
Cannon, Howard W.
D
NV
Bennett, Wallace F.
R
UT
Curtis, Carl T.
R
NE
Brooke, Edward W.
R
MA
94th Congress (1975-1976)
Cannon, Howard W.
D
NV
Stennis, John C.
D
MS
Talmadge, Herman E.
D
GA
Curtis, Carl T.
R
NE
Brooke, Edward W.
R
MA
Young, Milton R.
R
ND
Source: Garrison Nelson, Committees in the U.S. Congress 1947-1992 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly,
Inc., 1994), pp. 284-285.
Notes:
a.
Democratic Farmer-Labor Party.
b.
Senator Leonard Jordan was appointed on October 29, 1969, to replace Senator Pearson.
Congressional Research Service
16
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Appendix B. Membership on the Senate Select
Committee on Ethics, 1977-2014
Created in the 95th Congress (1977-1978), the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has had a total
of 56 members. Table B-1 provides a list of all Members who have served on the Senate Select
Committee on Ethics, their party affiliation, and their state. Majority party Members are listed
first.
Table B-1. Senate Select Committee on Ethics Membership
Member
Party
State
95th Congress (1977-1978)
Stevenson, Adlai E. III
D
IL
Ribicoff, Abraham A.
D
CT
Morgan, Robert B.
D
NC
Schmitt, Harrison H.
R
NM
Tower, John G.
R
TX
R
CT
R
KS
R
MD
Weicker, Lowell P., Jr.
Pearson, James
B.a
Mathias, Charles McC.,
Jr.b
96th Congress (1979-1980)
Stevenson, Adlai E. III
D
IL
Morgan, Robert B.
D
NC
Burdick, Quentin N.
D
ND
Heflin, Howell T.c
D
AL
Pryor, David H.d
D
AR
Schmitt, Harrison H.
R
NM
Hatfield, Mark O.
R
OR
Helms, Jesse A.
R
NC
R
WY
R
MS
Wallop,
Malcolme
Cochran, Thadf
97th Congress (1981-1982)
Wallop, Malcolm
R
WY
Cochran, Thad
R
MS
Mattingly, Mack
R
GA
A.g
R
NC
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
Pryor, David H.
D
AR
Eagleton, Thomas F.
D
MO
Helms, Jesse
Congressional Research Service
17
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Member
Party
State
98th Congress (1983-1984)
Stevens, Theodore F.
R
AK
Helms, Jesse A.
R
NC
Durenberger, David F.
R
MN
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
Pryor, David H.
D
AR
Eagleton, Thomas F.
D
MO
99th Congress (1985-1986)
Rudman, Warren B.
R
NH
Helms, Jesse A.
R
NC
Kassebaum, Nancy Landon
R
KS
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
Pryor, David H.
D
AR
Long, Russell B.
D
LA
100th Congress (1987-1988)
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
Pryor, David H.
D
AR
Sanford, Terry
D
NC
Rudman, Warren B.
R
NH
Helms, Jesse A.
R
NC
Kassebaum, Nancy Landon
R
KS
101st Congress (1989-1990)
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
Pryor, David H.
D
AR
Sanford, Terry
D
NC
Rudman, Warren B.
R
NH
Helms, Jesse A.
R
NC
Lott, Trent
R
MS
102nd Congress (1991-1992)
Heflin, Howell T.
D
AL
Pryor, David H.h
D
AR
Sanford, Terryi
D
NC
Bingaman, Jeffj
D
NM
Bryan, Richardk
D
NV
Rudman, Warren B.
R
NH
Lott, Trent
R
MS
Congressional Research Service
18
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Member
Gorton, Slade
Helms,
Jessel
Party
State
R
WA
R
NC
103rd Congress (1993-1994)
Bryan, Richard
D
NV
Mikulski, Barbara
D
MD
Daschle, Thomas
D
SD
McConnell, Mitch
R
KY
Stevens, Ted
R
AK
Smith, Robert
R
NH
Larrym
R
ID
Craig,
104th Congress (1995-1996)
McConnell, Mitch
R
KY
Smith, Robert
R
NH
Craig, Larry
R
ID
Bryan, Richard
D
NV
Mikulski, Barbara
D
MD
Dorgan, Byron
D
ND
D
NV
D
WA
Reid,
Harryn
Murray,
Pattyo
105th Congress (1997-1998)
Smith, Robert
R
NH
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
Sessions, Jeff
R
AL
Reid, Harry
D
NV
Murray, Patty
D
WA
Conrad, Kent
D
ND
106th Congress (1999-2000)
Smith, Robertp
R
NH
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
Voinovich, George
R
OH
Reid, Harry
D
NV
Conrad, Kent
D
ND
Durbin, Richard
D
IL
107th Congress (2001-2002)
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
Voinovich, George
R
OH
Congressional Research Service
19
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Member
Party
State
R
WY
D
NV
Akaka, Daniel
D
HI
Lincoln, Blanche
D
AR
Inouye, Daniels
D
HI
Reed, Jacks
D
RI
Thomas, Craig
Reid,
Harryq
108th Congress (2003-2004)
Voinovich, George
R
OH
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
Thomas, Craig
R
WY
Reid, Harry
D
NV
Akaka, Daniel
D
HI
Lincoln, Blanche
D
AR
109th Congress (2005-2006)
Voinovich, George
R
OH
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
Thomas, Craig
R
WY
Johnson, Tim
D
SD
Akaka, Daniel
D
HI
Pryor, Mark
D
AR
Kenr
D
CO
Salazar,
110th Congress (2007-2008)
Johnson, Timt
D
SD
Boxer, Barbarat
D
CA
Pryor, Mark L.
D
AR
Salazar, Ken
D
CO
D
OH
Cornyn, John
R
TX
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
Thomas, Craig
R
WY
Isakson, Johnnyv
R
GA
Brown,
Sherrodu
111th Congress (2009-2010)
Boxer, Barbara
D
CA
Pryor, Mark L.
D
AR
Brown, Sherrod
D
OH
Isakson, Johnny
R
GA
Congressional Research Service
20
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Member
Party
State
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
Risch, James E.
R
ID
112th Congress (2011-2012)
Boxer, Barbara
D
CA
Pryor, Mark L.
D
AR
Brown, Sherrod
D
OH
Isakson, Johnny
R
GA
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
Risch, James E.
R
ID
113th Congress (2013-2014)
Boxer, Barbara
D
CA
Pryor, Mark L.
D
AR
Brown, Sherrod
D
OH
Isakson, Johnny
R
GA
Roberts, Pat
R
KS
Risch, James E.
R
ID
Source: Garrison Nelson, Committees in the U.S. Congress 1947-1992, vol. 1 (Washington: Congressional
Quarterly, Inc., 1994), pp. 284-285; Garrison Nelson and Charles Steward III, Committees in the U.S. Congress
1993-2010 (Washington: CQ Press, 2011; “Senate Resolution 42—to Constitute the Majority Party’s
Membership on Certain Committees for the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, or Until Their Successors are
Chosen,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 157 (February 3, 2011), p. S551; “Senate Resolution 43—to
Constitute the Minority Party’s Membership on Certain Committees for the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, or
Until Their Successors are Chosen,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 157 (February 3, 2011), p. S551;
“Making Majority Party Appointments,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 159 (January 24, 2013), p. S296;
and “Making Minority Party Appointments,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 159 (January 24, 2013), p. S
296.
Notes:
a.
Senator Pearson was temporarily appointed to the committee to replaced Senator Tower due to an inquiry
in which Senator Tower recused himself.
b.
Senator Mathias was appointed on April 13, 1978 to replace Senator Weicker.
c.
Senator Heflin was appointed on October 31, 1979 to replace Senator Stevenson.
d.
Senator Pryor was appointed on January 25, 1980 to replace Senator Burdick.
e.
Senator Wallop was appointed on October 31, 1979 to replace Senator Schmitt.
f.
Senator Cochran was appointed on January 28, 1980 to replace Senator Hatfield.
g.
Senator Helms was appointed on January 21, 1981 to replace Senator Cochran.
h.
Senator Pryor left the committee in May 1991, but returned on September 10, 1991, in place of Senator
Bingaman, to serve during the completion of the “Keating Five” investigation. That investigation ended on
November 20, 1991.
i.
On August 2, 1991, Senator Sanford was named chairman of the committee for all matters except the
“Keating Five” investigation.
j.
Senator Bingaman was appointed to serve in place of Senator Pryor. However, he later declined to
participate in the “Keating Five” investigation, and Senator Pryor was reappointed for that purpose. On
Congressional Research Service
21
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
August 2, 1991, Senator Bingaman was reappointed to serve for all committee matters except the “Keating
Five” investigation.
k.
Senator Bryan was appointed to serve for all matters except the “Keating Five” investigation.
l.
Senator Helms was reappointed to serve during the 102nd Congress for the remainder of the “Keating Five”
investigation.
m.
Senator Craig was appointed on May 19, 1993 to replace Senate Stevens.
n.
Senator Reid was appointed on January 23, 1996 to replace Senator Bryan.
o.
Senator Murray was appointed on January 23, 1996 to replace Senator Mikulski.
p.
Sen. Smith became chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on November 9,
1999, and Sen. Roberts was appointed chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics the same day.
q.
On June 6, 2000, when the Democrats took control of the Senate, Sen. Reid became chairman of
committee.
r.
Senator Salazar was appointed on January 18, 2006 to replace Senator Akaka.
s.
On February 4, 2002, with the passage of S.Res. 203, Senator Inouye was appointed to chair the
committee in matters regarding the investigation of Senator Robert Torricelli, and Senator Reed was
appointed to serve in place of Senator Akaka for this investigation. All other committee business for the
107th Congress was handled by the six members originally appointed.
t.
On January 12, 2007, Senator Boxer was named chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics in Sen.
Johnson’s absence because of illness.
u.
On April 17, 2007, Senator Brown was appointed to serve in place of Senator Salazar only for matters
related to the committee’s preliminary inquiry arising in connection with the firing of a U.S. attorney in New
Mexico.
v.
Senator Thomas died in office on June 4, 2007, and was replaced by Senator Isakson on June 13, 2007.
Author Contact Information
Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress
jstraus@crs.loc.gov, 7-6438
Acknowledgments
This report revises an earlier report by Mildred Amer, who retired as a Specialist in American National
Government at CRS.
Congressional Research Service
22