Order Code 98-15 GOV
House Committee on Standards of
Official Official
Conduct: A Brief History of
Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Updated November 25, 2008
Mildred Amer
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct:
A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Summary
This report provides a history of the creation and evolution of the House
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Also known as the House Ethics
Committee and the Committee on Standards, it was first established as a select
committee in 1966. It became a standing committee in 1967, and has undergone two
major reorganizations, one in 1989 and the other in 1997.
This 10-member, bipartisan committee is authorized to (1) recommend to the
House of Representatives actions that would establish or enforce standards of official
conduct; and (2) investigate alleged violations by House Members, officers, and
employees of any law, rule, regulation, or standard of official conduct relating to their
official duties. The committee may, after several stages in an investigative process,
recommend any appropriate sanctions, including expulsion of a Member.
The committee also has jurisdiction over the House Code of Official Conduct
and is assigned responsibility for administering the gift, outside earned income,
financial disclosure and travel, and other regulations established by House rules, the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, and the Honest
Government and Open Leadership Act of 2007.
A substantial part the committee’s work is advisory and done by its Office of
Advice and Education, established to provide information and guidance to House
Members, officers, and employees on standards of conduct applicable in their official
capacities. This office also conducts educational briefings on laws and the House
rules of conduct, and responds to requests for advisory opinions.
In 1975, the committee announced its first disciplinary case against a Member
of the House. Since then, it has taken some form of public action on cases involving
at least 82 other Representatives, ranging from public acknowledgment that it had
considered, but dismissed, a complaint against a Member; to the noting of infractions
not meriting sanctions; to the issuance of a formal, public “Letter of Reproval” or a
“Letter of Admonition” or a public admonishment from the committee; to the
recommendation of censure, reprimand, or expulsion by the House.
In the 110th Congress, the House established the independent Office of
Congressional Ethics (H.Res. 895) to initiate investigations of and review alleged
violations of House rules and applicable laws by Members and staff. When
warranted, this office must refer its findings and recommendations (without any
conclusions on the validity of any allegations) to the House Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct for further action. The committee maintains the final authority
to discipline Members and employees as well as its prerogative to initiate
investigations.
For additional information please refer to CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement
of Congressional Rules of Conduct, by Mildred Amer.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Evolution and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Changes in Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Changes in Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2008 Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2005 Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1997 Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1989 Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Miscellaneous Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Disciplinary Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Congressional Committee Assignments
House Standards of Official Conduct Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct: A Brief History of Its Evolution and
Jurisdiction
Introduction
The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was established in the
90th Congress by H.Res. 418 on April 13, 1967.1 Rules of the House of
Representatives designate the committee to meet the key elements of its
responsibility for self-discipline as authorized by Article I, Section 5 of the
Constitution, which states in part that “Each House may determine the Rules of its
proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
The committee has jurisdiction over the House Code of Official Conduct and
is assigned responsibility for administering the gift, outside earned income, and
financial disclosure requirements established by House rules, the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-521), the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101194), and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-81).2
This 10-member, bipartisan committee, often referred to as the House Ethics
Committee or House Standards Committee, is authorized to (1) recommend actions
that would establish or enforce standards of official conduct; and (2) investigate
alleged violations by House Members, officers, and employees of any law, rule,
regulation, or standard of official conduct relating to their official duties.3 After
1
Congressional Record, vol. 113, April 13, 1967, pp. 9426-9448. See also U.S. Congress,
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual, 110th Cong., 2nd sess.
(Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 4-8; and [http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/
2008_House_Ethics_Manual.pdf], visited October 25, 2008.
2
The committee periodically publishes a comprehensive Ethics Manual and issues
supplementary memoranda to assist Members, officers, and employees in interpreting the
various ethics laws, rules, and regulations. The most recent Manual was published during
the 110th Congress. U.S. Congress, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, House
Ethics Manual, 110 th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008); and
[http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/2008_House_Ethics_Manual.pdf], visited October 25,
2008. For the most current information on House rules of conduct and guidelines from the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, visit the committee’s website at
[http://www.house.gov/ethics].
3
House Rule XI, Clause 3(a)(1)(2). The members of the committee are appointed by the
leaders of their respective parties. The size of the committee was reduced from 14 to 10 on
September 18, 1997, with the adoption of H.Res. 168, which revised the committee’s
operation and procedures. When first created, the committee had 12 Members. In the 105th
(continued...)
CRS-2
several stages in an investigative process, the committee may recommend to the
House any appropriate sanction, including the expulsion of a Member.4
The committee may also report to appropriate federal or state authorities, with
the approval of the House or two-thirds of the committee members, any substantial
evidence of law violations by a Member or staff.5
Pursuant to House Rule X, clause 5(a)(4)(A) and (B); Rule XI, clause 3; and the
Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L 101-194, §803(b), (c), and (e), 103 Stat. 1774), the
committee’s investigative and adjudicative functions are “bifurcated,” or separated.6
At the beginning of each Congress, the Speaker and the minority leader appoint a 20person pool of Members (10 from each party) not serving on the House Standards of
Official Conduct Committee, who are then to be available to serve on any
investigative subcommittee formed during that Congress.
An investigative subcommittee is the initial phase in the bifurcation process. If
this subcommittee finds a violation of House rules has occurred, it then transmits a
Statement of Alleged Violations (formal charges) to the chair and ranking member
of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The chair of the House
Standards Committee is then required to appoint an adjudicative subcommittee. The
members of this subcommittee are members of the Committee on Standards who
were not members of the investigative subcommittee as well as the chair and ranking
member of the full committee. The adjudicative subcommittee judges the evidence
in the Statement of Alleged Violations and recommends sanctions, if its members
concludes they are warranted.
Complaints alleging House rules violations can only be filed with the committee
by a Member of the House or the new Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE),
discussed below. Complaints not filed by the OCE or Members of the House must
have a current Representative certify in writing that the information is in good faith
and warrants consideration by the committee. Prior to 1997, members of the public
(under certain conditions) as well as Members of the House could file a complaint
against a Member, officer, or employee of the House. That changed in September
3
(...continued)
Congress, the committee was not organized until September 1997 because of a
comprehensive review of its procedures by a special task force. On January 7, 1997, a
Select Committee on Ethics was established to complete an investigation begun by the
committee created by the 104th Congress. Most of the committee members from the 104th
Congress were appointed to the new select committee, which was to cease to exist upon the
final disposition of its investigation or by January 21,1997. See Rep. Richard Armey,
“Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, January 7, 1997, p. 123.
4
House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(1)(2); and U.S. Congress, Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, Summary of Activities One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th Cong., 2nd sess.,
H.Rept. 108-806 (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 56-60.
5
House Rule XI, Clause 3(a)(3)
6
The bifurcation process has been used in 18 committee investigations.
CRS-3
1997 when the House amended the rule governing complaints filed by individuals
who are not Members.7
The House, by resolution, may direct the Standards of Official Conduct
Committee to conduct a specific investigation. There is also a “statute of limitations”
for investigations.8
The substantial part of the committee’s work, however, is advisory and done by
the Office of Advice and Education, which was established within the committee in
January 1990 by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194).9 This office is
responsible for providing information and guidance to House Members, officers, and
employees on standards of conduct applicable in their official capacities. The office
also responds to requests for advisory opinions and interpretations of applicable laws,
rules, and statutes.10 Further, the office is now required to offer annual training for
Members and staff on the House rules of conduct.11 New staff must receive such
training within 60 days of employment.12
Recent Developments
During the 110th Congress, after years of discussions about the establishment of
investigative and enforcement mechanisms to supplement or replace the two
congressional ethics committees,13 the House created the Office of Congressional
Ethics (OCE) with the adoption of H.Res. 895 on March 11, 2008.14
This office is empowered to initiate investigations of alleged violations of
House rules and applicable laws by Members and staff. When warranted, it can refer
7
“Implementing the Recommendations of the Bipartisan Ethics Task Force,” Congressional
Record, vol. 143, September 18, 1997, pp. 19302-19340.
8
The committee is not permitted to investigate, under most circumstances, alleged violations
that occurred before the third previous Congress.
9
See House Rule XI, Clause 3(a)(4).
10
Useful information about the committee’s activities and advisory opinions can be found
on its website at [http://www.house.gov/ethics].
11
House Rule XI, Clause 3(a)(6)(A).
12
House Rule XI, Clause 3(a)(6)(B).
13
For an analysis of creating such entities, as well as the constitutional issues, see CRS
Report RL33790, “Independent” Legislative Commission or Office for Ethics and/or
Lobbying, by Jack Maskell and R. Eric Petersen.
14
U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Rules, Providing for the Adoption of the Resolution
( H.Res. 895), Establishing Within the House of Representatives An Office of Congressional
Ethics and For Other Purposes, report to accompany H.Res. 1031, 110rd Cong., 2nd sess.,
H.Rept. 110-547 (Washington: GPO, 2008); “Establishing An Office of Congressional
Ethics,” Congressional Record, vol. 154, March 11, 2008, pp. H1515-H1536; and Carl
Hulse, “House Creates A Panel to Watch Over Lawmakers’ Behavior,” The New York
Times, March 12, 2008, p. 1. For additional information, refer to CRS Report RL30764,
Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: An Historical Overview, by Mildred Amer.
CRS-4
its findings and recommendations (without any conclusions on the validity of any
allegations) to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for further
action. The committee maintains the final authority to discipline Members and
employees as well as initiate investigations.15
On the first day of the 110th Congress, when the House adopted its rules, it
added more restrictions on the acceptance of gifts by Members and staff, placed more
limits on acceptance of travel expenses from outside sources for “officially connected
travel,” and added for more transparency in the disclosures of such travel.16 Included
in the new rules are a ban on all gifts from lobbyists (Rule XXV, clause 5(a)); and
a clarification that tickets to sporting events are to be valued at “face” value or at
what the general public would pay (Rule XXV, clause 5(a)). The new rules clarified
further the limits on the acceptance from private sources of expenses for “officially
connected” travel (House Rule XXV, clause 5(b)) and require Members and staff
who accept such travel to receive prior approval from the House Standards
Committee and to certify to the committee before traveling that lobbyists would not
be involved in any way (Rule XXV, clause 5(d)). The rules mandate that the
committee develop standards for reasonable expenses incurred by Members and staff
for private, “officially connected” travel (Rule XXV, clause 5(i)).
The new rules also generally prohibit Members and staff from flying on private
aircraft other than a plane they own (Rule XXIII, clause 15(b)(2)).
Additional changes to the House ethics rules affecting the Committee on
Standards are in the Honest Government and Open Leadership Act (P.L. 110-82)
which requires Members and designated staff to notify the committee within three
days of the beginning of negotiations for future (post Congress) employment and
compensation (House Rule XXVIII).
Also during the 110th Congress, the House passed a resolution requiring the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to act within 30 days when a Member
of the House is indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct in a
court of the United States.17 If the committee does not empanel an investigative
subcommittee to review the allegations, it must submit a report to the House
describing why it has not done so and detailing what actions, if any, it has taken in
15
This new office is discussed further in the section of this report entitled “Changes in
Procedures.”
16
H.Res. 6, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, January 4, 2007, pp. H.19-H38.
See also CRS Report RS22566, Acceptance of Gifts by Members and Employees of the
House of Representatives Under the New Ethics Rules of the 110th Congress, by Jack
Maskell; and CRS Report RL34166, Lobbying Law and Ethics Rules Changes in the 110th
Congress, by Jack Maskell.
17
“Directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to Respond to the Indictment
of Any Member of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 5, 2007,
pp. H5971-H5976, and H5978-H5979.
CRS-5
response to the allegations. This provision has not been incorporated in House rules
and will expire at the end of the 110th Congress.18
During the 109th Congress, on June 7, 2006, the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct held a rare open hearing on potential changes in travel guidelines
and rules for Members and staff.19 According to journalistic accounts, the impetus
was general interest in lobbying, travel, and gift reform.20
Evolution and Background
Prior to the creation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the
first House Code of Official Conduct and financial disclosure rule in the 90th
Congress (1967-1969), there was no uniform or consistent mechanism for
congressional self-discipline.21 Some allegations of misconduct were investigated
by the House Administration Committee, or, more often, in an ad hoc manner by
special or select committees. Election disputes and charges of election fraud were
also investigated by special ad hoc committees or other committee and
subcommittees. Other allegations were considered by the House without prior
committee action. The creation of the Ethics Committee responded to a need for
systematizing House responses to questions of official misconduct and Members’
need for a reliable, accessible source of information about potential conflicts of
interest and other ethical dilemmas that are inherent to serving in Congress.
Ethics committees and standards of conduct for the House as well as the Senate
had been suggested since at least the mid-1950s, but it was not until a decade later
that these proposals gained sufficient support for enactment.
18
This information was verified on October 24, 2008, in a telephone call to the office of the
House Parliamentarian.
19
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
[http://ethics.house.gov/Pubs/Default.aspx?Section=29], visited October 31, 2008; and
Elana Schor, “The House Ethics Committee Solicits Input in Rare Hearing,” The Hill, June
8, 2006, p. 4.
20
See, Susan Ferrechio, “Scandals Churn Up Strong Winds Behind Efforts to Rewrite
Lobbying Rules,” CQ Today, January 9, 2006, pp. 3, 6; Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “Hill Weighs
Curbs on Lobbying,” The Washington Post, January 12, 2006, p. A4; and Carl Hulse, “2
Parties Rush to Offer Curbs on Lobbying,” The New York Times, January 18, 2006, pp. A1,
A17.
21
In 1958, Congress adopted the Code of Ethics for Government Service, which articulated
broad ethical guidelines for all government officers and employees, including Members of
Congress and congressional staff. The Code was adopted as a concurrent resolution
(H.Con.Res. 175, July 11, 1958; 72 Stat., Part 2, § B12), rather than a statute. Through the
years, however, its impact has been strengthened by the House and Senate Ethics
Committees, which have included it as a standard for discipline in several cases. See, for
example, 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.
CRS-6
During hearings before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress
in 1965, considerable testimony was presented on the ethical conduct of Members;
and the need for House and Senate codes of conduct, financial disclosure regulations,
and a House Ethics Committee (the Senate had created one in 1964).22 In its final
report, the Joint Committee called for the creation of a Committee on Standards and
Conduct in the House.23
In October 1966, shortly after the Joint Committee issued its report, and
following publicized allegations of misconduct by former House Education and
Labor Committee Chairman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., the House created the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct (H.Res. 1013).24
As reported, H.Res. 1013 granted the select committee powers similar to those
ultimately given the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.25 The resolution
was amended on the floor, however, and the select committee’s powers were limited
to (1) recommending additional House rules or regulations necessary to insure proper
standards of conduct by House Members, officers, and employees; and (2) reporting
violations of law, by majority vote, to the proper federal and state authorities. Like
the current committee, the select committee’s membership was to be bipartisan.
Because of the brevity of the select committee’s existence (October 1966 to
January 1967), the members of the committee concluded that they could not
“prudently recommend changes in existing provisions of law or recommend new
ones at this time.”26 Instead, they recommended that (1) the committee be continued
as a select committee in the 90th Congress; (2) legislation introduced in the 90th
Congress on standards and conduct should be referred to the select committee; and
(3) Members of the House should be asked for suggested changes in existing statutes.
Included in the report was a draft resolution for continuation of the select committee.
During the first session of the 90th Congress, numerous resolutions were
introduced to provide for the establishment of a Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct. The House Rules Committee held hearings on these proposals early in
1967, and subsequently reported H.Res. 418, which provided for the creation of a
22
U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Index to Hearings
Before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, pursuant to S.Res. 2, hearings
89th Cong, 1st and 2nd sess, various dates 1965 and 1966, part 16 (Washington: GPO, 1966),
p. 45.
23
U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of
Congress, final report pursuant to S.Res. 2, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 89-1414
(Washington: GPO, 1966), p. 48.
24
Congressional Record, vol. 112, October 19, 1966, pp. 27713-27730.
25
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Creating a Select Committee on Standards
and Conduct, report to accompany H.Res. 1013, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 89-2012
(Washington: GPO, 1966).
26
U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Report Under the
Authority of H.Res. 1013, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 89-2338 (Washington: GPO, 1966).
CRS-7
standing committee to be known as the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct.27
H.Res. 418, which was adopted on April 13, 1967, established a 12-member,
bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.28 Its sole function was to
recommend changes in laws, rules, and regulations that were needed to establish and
enforce House standards of official conduct. The first members of the committee
were appointed shortly thereafter.
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct held its first hearings in the
summer of 1967.29 Subsequently, it issued a report recommending
!
continuation of the committee as a select committee;
!
changes in the committee’s jurisdiction and powers;
!
creation of a Code of Official Conduct and financial disclosure rules
for Members, officers, and employees of the House;
!
establishment of standardized controls by the House Administration
Committee over committees using counterpart funds (foreign
currencies held by U.S. embassies that can only be spent in the
country of origin);
!
a prompt review of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (reporting of
campaign expenditures) by the House; and
!
compliance by House candidates with applicable provisions of the
Code of Official Conduct.30
Pursuant to this report, the House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1099,
which contained many of these recommendations.31 That resolution was amended
27
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Establishment of a Standing Committee to be
Known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and for Other Purposes, report
to accompany H.Res. 418, 90th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 90-178 (Washington: GPO, 1967).
28
Congressional Record, vol. 113, April 13, 1967, pp. 9426-9448.
29
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Standards of Official
Conduct, hearings, 90th Cong., 1st sess., August 16-17, 23-24, 1967, and September 14, 21,
27, 1967 (Washington: GPO, 1967).
30
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Code of Conduct for
Members and Employees of the House, report under the authority of H.Res. 418, 90th Cong.,
2nd sess., H.Rept. 90-1176 (Washington: GPO, 1968).
31
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Amending H.Res. 418, 90th Congress, to
Continue the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as a Permanent Standing
Committee of the House of Representatives, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany
H.Res. 1099, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 90-1248 (Washington: GPO, 1968).
CRS-8
and adopted by the House on April 3, 1968.32 It provided for (1) continuation of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as a permanent standing House
committee; (2) enumeration of the committee’s jurisdiction and powers; (3) the first
House Code of Official Conduct (Rule XLIII); and (4) the first financial disclosure
requirements for Members, officers, and designated employees (Rule XLIV).33
Jurisdiction
H.Res. 1099 authorized the committee to (1) recommend to the House
legislative or administrative actions deemed necessary for establishing or enforcing
standards of conduct; (2) investigate allegations of violations of the Code of Official
Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to
Members, officers, and employees in the performance of official duties, and after
notice and a hearing, recommend to the House appropriate action; (3) report to
appropriate state and federal authorities, subject to House approval, evidence of
violations of law by Members, officers, and employees in the performance of official
duties;34 and (4) issue and publish advisory opinions for the guidance of Members,
officers, and employees.
The committee was also given jurisdiction over measures relating to the House
Code of Official Conduct and financial disclosure. In addition, H.Res. 1099 imposed
several limitations on the Ethics Committee. These limits, except where noted, are
still in effect in House Rule XI, clause 3(a). They stipulate that:
32
!
there must be an affirmative vote of seven out of 12 committee
members for the issuance of any report, resolution, recommendation,
or advisory opinion relating to the official conduct of a Member,
officer, or employee or the investigation of such conduct;35
!
investigations, other than those initiated by the committee, can be
undertaken only upon receipt of a complaint, in writing and under
oath, from a Member of the House, or an individual not a Member
if the committee finds that such complaint has been submitted by the
Congressional Record, vol. 114, April 3, 1968, pp. 8776-8812.
33
Only a portion of the disclosures required by this two-part rule was to be available to the
public.
34
With the adoption of H.Res. 168 (105th Cong., 1st sess.) on September 18, 1997, the House
voted to permit an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the full Standards Committee or the
approval of the House for the referral of evidence of violations of law to the appropriate law
enforcement authorities. Previously, this referral authority had been granted only to the
Select Committee on Ethics for one year (1966) and later to only the full House, although
reformers for many years had advocated giving it back to the to the committee.
35
This seven Member requirement was replaced in 1974 with “an affirmative vote by a
majority of the members of the committee” to accommodate any subsequent changes in the
committee’s size. In 1991, pursuant to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the membership was
increased to 14. However, in 1997, with the adoption of the recommendation of the Ethics
Reform Task Force (H.Res. 168), the membership was reduced to 10.
CRS-9
individual to no fewer than three Members who have refused in
writing to transmit the complaint to the committee;36
!
investigations of alleged violations of any law, rule, etc., that was
not in effect at the time of the alleged violation are prohibited;37 and
!
members of the committee are not eligible to participate in any
committee proceeding relating to their official conduct.38
H.Res. 1099 also empowered the committee to hold hearings, receive testimony,
and issue subpoenas in the course of conducting an investigation.
Changes in Jurisdiction
On July 8, 1970, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was given
jurisdiction over lobbying activities as well as those involving the raising, reporting,
and use of campaign funds.39 Subsequently, pursuant to the adoption of the House
rules for the 94th Congress (1975-1977), jurisdiction over campaign contributions was
transferred to the House Administration Committee.40 With the adoption of the
House rules for the 95th Congress (1977-1979), jurisdiction41 over lobbying was
transferred to the House Judiciary Committee, and its jurisdiction over measures
relating to financial disclosure was transferred to the House Rules Committee.42
On March 2, 1977, in the 95th Congress, the House adopted H.Res. 287, which
contained several amendments and additions to the House rules of conduct.43
Included were the first House public financial disclosure rule and limits on outside
earned income and unofficial office accounts as well as limitations on gifts, the
franking privilege, and foreign travel. Pursuant to H.Res. 287, the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct assumed jurisdiction over these additional rules of
36
H.Res. 168, adopted September 18, 1997, changed the requirements for the filing of
complaints by non-Members to require that such complaints be transmitted by a Member
who “certifies in writing to the committee that he or she believes the information is
submitted in good faith and warrants the review and consideration of the Committee.”
37
This rule was expanded by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 to include a statute of
limitations of three previous Congresses for investigations of alleged violations.
38
Provisions were made for the Speaker to replace the Member for the duration of any such
case. In 1977, the House rules were also amended to provide a mechanism for a committee
member to disqualify himself/herself from participating in an investigation in which he/she
states in writing and under oath that he/she cannot render an impartial decision.
39
Congressional Record, vol. 116, July 8, 1970, pp. 23136-23141.
40
Congressional Record, vol. 121, January 14, 1975, p. 20.
41
Congressional Record, vol. 123, March 9, 1977, pp. 6811-6817.
42
Congressional Record, vol. 123, January 4, 1977, p. 53. Note, the committee still has
substantive jurisdiction over financial disclosure pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act
of 1978 (P.L. 95-521).
43
Congressional Record, vol. 123, March 2, 1977, pp. 5885-5953.
CRS-10
conduct and was authorized to maintain the public financial disclosure reports filed
by Members, officers, and designated employees.44 In addition, a Select Committee
on Ethics, chaired by Representative Richardson Preyer (D-NC), was established to
assist in the implementation of the new rules.
On July 14, 1977, a resolution establishing the House Intelligence Committee
authorized the Committee on Standards to investigate any unauthorized disclosure
of intelligence or intelligence-related information by a House Member, officer, or
employee and report any substantiated allegations to the House.45
In August 1977, with the enactment of P.L. 95-105, which amended the Foreign
Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, the committee was designated as the “employing
agency” for the House and authorized to issue regulations governing the acceptance
by House Members and personnel of gifts, trips, and decorations from foreign
governments.
In 1978, government-wide public financial disclosure requirements were
mandated with the enactment of the Ethics in Government Act (P.L. 95-521).
Subsequently, with the adoption of the House rules for the 96th Congress (19791981), the provisions of the House financial disclosure rule were replaced by those
of the Ethics Act and incorporated into House rules.46 This act delegated to the
Committee on Standards review, interpretation, and compliance responsibilities for
the public financial disclosure reports that henceforth were to be filed with the Clerk
of the House.
Subsequently, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194), which amended
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, included a variety of ethics and pay reforms
for the three branches of government that further expanded the responsibilities of the
House Committee on Standards.47 These included enforcement of the act’s ban on
honoraria, limits on outside earned income, and restrictions on the acceptance of
gifts. The committee was also given the responsibility for consideration of any
requests for a written waiver of the limits imposed by the House gift ban rule.
44
In 1989, the office of the Clerk of the House became the repository for House public
financial disclosure reports.
45
Congressional Record, vol. 123, July 14, 1977, pp. 22932-22949.
46
Congressional Record, vol. 125, January 15, 1979, p. 9.
47
The Ethics Reform Act, which passed the House on November 16, 1989, and was signed
into law (P.L. 101-194) on November 30, 1989, also mandated certain changes in the
committee’s procedures, infra. See U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Bipartisan Task
Force on Ethics on H.R. 3360, committee print, 101st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO,
1989), pp. 9-11, 16-21. See also Congressional Record, vol. 135, November 16, 1989, pp.
29469-29509.
CRS-11
Changes in Procedures
2008 Changes. On March 11, the House created the Office of Congressional
Ethics (OCE), an independent House office to review and submit formal complaints
of wrongdoing (without any conclusion on their validity) to the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.48 H.Res. 895 amended the procedural rules of the
Committee on Standards (House Rule XI, clause 3). The action followed the
recommendations of the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, established by
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner in January
2007 to consider whether the House should create an “outside” ethics enforcement
entity.49 Chaired by Representative Michael Capuano, the task force held a number
of executive briefings and, on April 19, 2007, a public hearing.50
H.Res. 895 established the OCE, composed of six board members jointly
appointed by House leaders. Current House Members, federal employees, and
lobbyists are not eligible to serve on the board, composed of private citizens with a
wide range of professional experience. The board’s responsibility is to review
allegations of misconduct by Members, officers, and employees of the House and
then, if appropriate, make recommendations to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct for its consideration.51 Any referrals to the Standards of Official
Conduct Committee are to be acted on in accord with the committee’s current rules.
The committee is required to make a public announcement of its disposition of
certain referrals within specific time frames.
The OCE board is required to act in secrecy on all matters and communicate
solely with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Final authority to either
48
U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Rules, Providing for the Adoption of the Resolution
( H.Res. 895), Establishing Within the House of Representatives An Office of Congressional
Ethics and For Other Purposes, report to accompany H.Res. 1031, 110th Cong., 2nd sess.,
H.Rept. 110-547 (Washington: GPO, 2008); “Establishing An Office of Congressional
Ethics,” Congressional Record, vol. 154, March 11, 2008, pp. H1515-H1536; and Carl
Hulse, “House Creates A Panel to Watch Over Lawmakers’ Behavior,” The New York
Times, March 12, 2008, p. 1. For additional information, refer to CRS Report RL30764,
Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: An Historical Overview, by Mildred Amer.
49
Rep. Michael E. Capuano, “Dear Colleague” letter, December 19, 2007,
[http://www.house.gov/capuano/news/2007/121907ethics/Dear%20Colleague%20Letter.
pdf], visited October 29, 2008; U.S. House, Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement,
[http://www.house.gov/capuano/news/2007/121907ethics/Ethics%20Report.pdf], visited
October 29, 2008; and Susan Davis, “Pelosi, Boehner Name Eight Members to Ethics Task
Force,” Roll Call, February 1, 2007, pp. 3, 22. The other Members on the task force were
Reps. Robert Scott, Betty McCollum, David Price, Lamar Smith (ranking member), Dave
Camp, David Hobson, and Todd Tiahrt.
50
U.S. House, Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, Public Hearing on Ethics
Process, 110th Cong, 1st sess., April 19, 2007 (unpublished), [http://www.house.gov/
capuano/news/2007/121907ethics/Hearing%20Transcript%20-%20working.pdf], visited
January 15, 2008.
51
Former Members and staff of the House could not serve on the board sooner than one year
after leaving House employment.
CRS-12
dismiss a case referred to it or to empanel an investigative subcommittee is still the
responsibility of the committee, thus keeping authority for any investigation and
proposed discipline of a Member or staff under the control of current Members of the
House.
No public announcements will be required when neither the board nor the
Standards of Official Conduct Committee find wrongdoing. The OCE does not have
subpoena power, and no cases may be referred to the Standards Committee within
60 days of an election in which the subject of a referral is a candidate.
The first members of the OCE were appointed in July 2008.52
2005 Changes. On January 4, 2005, when the House adopted H.Res. 5, its
rules for the 105th Congress, it included several provisions affecting the Committee
on Standards’ procedures in handling allegations against a House Member, officer,
or employee as well as procedures to be followed when the conduct of Member,
officer, or employee might be referenced in the course of an investigation against
someone else.53 Subsequently, on April 27, 2005, the changes were dropped when
the House deleted all amendments to the committee’s procedures that had been
adopted earlier in the year.54
Other major changes in the composition and rules of procedure of the House
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct occurred in 1989 and 1997.55
52
Speaker of the House, “Pelosi, Boehner Announce Appointments to New Office of
Congressional Ethics,” press release, July 24, 2008, [http://speaker.house.gov/
newsroom/pressreleases?id=0762], visited October 29, 2008; and Molly Hooper, “House
Leaders Make Selection for Six-Member Outside Ethics Board,” CQ Today, July 25, 2009,
p. 7. The members are former Representatives David Skaggs (chair), Porter Goss (vice
chair), Karan English, and Yvonne Braithwaite Burke, former House CAO Jay Eagen, and
former professor and chief of staff of the Federal Election Commission Allison Hayward.
The alternates are former Representative and federal judge Abner Mikva and former
Representative Bill Frenzel.
53
“Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, January 4, 2005, pp.
H7-H31.
54
“Amending the Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, April
27, 2005, pp. H2616-H2626. See also CRS Report RS22034, House Ethics Rules Changes
in the 109th Congress, by Mildred Amer.
55
During the 103rd Congress, the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress held two
hearings on reform of the congressional ethics process. The most discussed topics included
streamlining the ethics process and including non-Members as part of that process. No
action, however, was taken on the any of the committee’s recommendations relating the
ethics process. See U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress,
Organization of the Congress, Final Report of the Joint Committee on the Organization of
Congress, 103rd Cong.,1st sess., S.Rept. 103-215, vol. II (Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 123129; and U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization
of Congress, Final Report of the House Members of the Joint Committee on the
Organization of Congress, 103rd Cong.,1st sess., H.Rept. 103-413, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO,
1993), pp. 3-4.
CRS-13
1997 Changes. On September 18, 1997, after seven months of study, the
House adopted, with amendments, the recommendations of the Ethics Reform Task
Force, which had been established in February 1997.56 The 10-member task force
was mandated to review the existing House ethics process and recommend reforms
of that process.57 It was chaired by Representatives Bob Livingston (R-LA) and Ben
Cardin (D-MD). At the same time that the House approved the establishment of the
task force on February 12, it also approved a 65-day moratorium on the filing of new
ethics complaints to enable the Task Force to conduct its work “in a climate free
from specific questions of ethical propriety.”58 That moratorium was extended
several times prior to adoption of the task force’s recommendations.
During the course of its deliberations, the task force conducted several days of
hearings, the majority of which were held in closed session. Testimony was received
from experts in the ethics process, attorneys who had represented respondents before
the House Ethics Committee, and Members of the House, some of whom had served
on the Ethics Committee.
The major changes in the ethics process adopted by the House on September 18,
1997, included the following:
!
altering the way individuals who are not Members of the House file
complaints with the committee by requiring them to have a Member
of the House certify in writing that the information is submitted in
good faith and warrants consideration by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct;59
!
decreasing the size of the committee from 14 members to 10;
!
establishing a 20-person pool of Members (10 from each party) to
supplement the work of the Ethics Committee as potential
appointees to investigative subcommittees that the committee might
establish; 60
56
“Implementing the Recommendations of Bipartisan House Ethics Task Force,”
Congressional Record, vol. 143, September 18, 1997, pp. 19302-19340.
57
Congressional Record, vol. 143, February 12, 1997, pp. 2058-2059.
58
Congressional Record, vol. 143, February 12, 1997, p. 2059.
59
This procedure superseded a process whereby individuals who were not Members of the
House could file complaints with the Standards Committee only after they had submitted
allegations to at least three House Members, who had refused in writing to transmit the
complaint to the committee.
60
The first pool of 20 Members selected to serve on investigative committees of the
Standards Committee was appointed on November 13, 1997. See The Speaker Pro Tempore
[Rep. Ray La Hood], “List of Republican and Democratic Members Selected to Serve As
‘Pool’ For Purposed Relating To The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,”
Congressional Record, vol. 143, November 13, 1997, p. 26569. The House leadership has
subsequently appointed a 20-person pool of Members in each Congress.
CRS-14
!
requiring the chair and ranking minority member of the committee
to determine within 14 calendar days or 5 legislative days,
whichever comes first, if the information offered as a complaint
meets the committee’s requirements;61
!
allowing an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the
committee or approval of the full House to refer evidence of
violations of law disclosed in a committee investigation to the
appropriate state or federal law enforcement authorities;62
!
providing for a nonpartisan, professional committee staff;
!
allowing the ranking member on the committee to place matters on
the committee’s agenda; and
!
decreasing the maximum service on the committee from six years to
four years during any three successive Congresses and required at
least four members to be rotated off the committee at the end of each
Congress.63
These changes took effect in the 105th Congress. After the members of the
committee were appointed for the 105th Congress in September 1997, they voted to
carry over three pending cases from the 104th Congress and apply the new procedures
to each of those cases.
1989 Changes. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194) contained
provisions affecting the three branches of government and also mandated changes in
the House Ethics Committee.64 It established the Office of Advice and Education,
effective January 1, 1990. This office is part of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, but is separate from its enforcement functions. Its staff offers
training, guidance, and provides recommendations to Members, officers, and
employees of the House on standards of conduct applicable to their official duties.
Other changes implemented by the 1989 act that are still applicable include:
61
Previously, there was no specific time limit for this determination.
62
With the exception of a brief period in 1966, only a vote by the full House previously
permitted referrals of possible violations of law to the appropriate authorities.
63
When the House adopted its rules for the 106th Congress (1999-2001), it changed the
committee service rule and also voted to eliminate the rule requiring four members of the
Standards Committee to rotate off the committee every Congress. This action returned the
committee’s service requirement to what it had been after the adoption of the Ethics Reform
Act of 1989 (no more than three Congresses in any period of five successive Congresses).
See Congressional Record, vol. 145, January 6, 1999, p. 54.
64
Congressional Record, vol. 135, November 16, 1989, pp. 29469-29509.
CRS-15
!
“bifurcation” (separation) within the committee of its investigative
and adjudicative functions;65
!
a requirement that the committee report to the House on any case it
has voted to investigate and that any Letter of Reproval or other
committee administrative action may be issued only as part of a final
report to the House;
!
a statute of limitation prohibiting the committee from initiating or
undertaking an investigation of alleged violations occurring prior to
the third previous Congress unless they are related to a continuous
course of conduct in recent years;
!
a guarantee that any Member who is the respondent in any Ethics
Committee investigation may be accompanied by one counsel on the
House floor during consideration of his/her case; and
!
a time limit of committee service of no more than three out of any
five consecutive Congresses.
The act also increased the size of the committee’s membership from 12 to 14.
That change, however, was superceded by the 1997 reforms that reduced the size of
the committee from 14 to10 members.
Miscellaneous Changes. Changes in the committee’s procedures over the
last 30 years that remain in effect include the following: (1) on January 3, 1975, at
the commencement of the 94th Congress, pursuant to the adoption of the Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974, the committee rules were changed to permit a majority
vote (instead of 10 of the then-12 members) to approve committee reports,
recommendations, advisory opinions, and investigations;66 (2) on January 4, 1977,
the House adopted a rule permitting a member of the committee to disqualify
himself/herself from participating in an investigation upon submission of an affidavit
of disqualification in writing and under oath;67 and (3) on January 15, 1979, House
rules were amended to prohibit information, testimony, and the contents of a
complaint or note of its filing from being publicly disclosed unless specifically
authorized by the full committee.68
65
Bifurcation has thus far been implemented in 18 committee investigations.
66
Congressional Record, vol. 120, October 8, 1974, p. 34470.
67
Congressional Record, vol. 123, January 4, 1977, p. 53.
68
Congressional Record, vol. 125, January 15, 1979, p. 8.
CRS-16
Disciplinary Cases69
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has operated cautiously
through the years in exercising its disciplinary authority and responsibilities. For
example, the committee is careful not to discuss publicly allegations received and
those under review before determining their merit or deciding to begin a preliminary
inquiry. Committee rules prohibit the chairman and ranking member from making
public statements about matters before the Ethics Committee unless authorized to do
so by the committee. Members and staff may not disclose any evidence relating to
an ongoing investigation unless authorized by the committee. While preserving the
authority of the full committee, the ethics reforms adopted September 18, 1997, grant
discretion, when appropriate, to the chairman and ranking member to make public
statements about matters before the committee.70
As granted by House Rules, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
has several options at the conclusion of any formal investigation. It may recommend
no further House action, issue a “Letter of Reproval”71 or a “Letter of Admonition”72
without recommending action by the full House, or recommend one or more
sanctions if it determines a rules violation has occurred. The sanctions that may be
69
Visit [http://www.house.gov/ethics/Historical_Chart_Final_Version.htm] for a historical
summary of cases provided by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
There is no single comprehensive official source for documenting all of the cases considered
by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Good resources include
“Congressional Ethics Cases, 1976-1980,” in Congressional Ethics, 2nd ed. (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, 1980), pp. 21-47; “Ethics and Criminal Prosecutions,” 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 quadrenially by
Congressional Quarterly Inc.; and Mary Ann Noyer, Catalogue of Congressional Ethics
Cases, 1796-1992 (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1995).
70
For example, it may be appropriate to respond to unauthorized press accounts of
investigations or to respond to misinformation. See U.S. Congress, House Ethics Reform
Task Force, Report of the Ethics Reform Task Force on H.Res. 168, committee print, 105th
Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 11-12.
71
A public Letter of Reproval is a sanction created by the committee and first used in 1987.
It is an administrative action authorized under the rules of the House and issued as part of
a public report from the committee after a formal investigation. It is an expression by the
committee that the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee was improper but that no
further action is required by the House. Committee rules implemented following the
adoption of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 mandate that any Letter of Reproval or other
committee administrative action may only be issued as a final report to the House. The
committee has issued five public “Letters of Reproval.”
72
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has resolved several complaints by
means of a letter to a respondent without a formal investigation. According to the
committee, “In the past such letters have not been formally termed ‘letters of admonition,’
but this term accurately describes the substance of these letters.” Unlike a Letter of
Reproval, a Letter of Admonishment is not authorized under House rules. Such a letter was
sent to a Member of the House in 2004.
See [http://www.house.gov/ethics/
Delay_memo.htm], p. 2, and U.S. Congress, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
Summary of Activities One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., pp. 62-68.
CRS-17
recommended include expulsion, censure, reprimand or admonishment;73 a fine,
denial or limitation of any right, privilege, or immunity of the Member that is
permitted under the Constitution; or any other sanction deemed appropriate by the
Ethics Committee.74 Typically, the House has supported the committee’s
recommendations, although it is not required to do so. However, in two instances,
the House changed a censure recommendation from the committee to a reprimand;
and in two additional instances changed a reprimand recommendation from the
committee to censure.75
Since its inception, published accounts have indicated that the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct has taken some form of action on cases involving at
least 83 Representatives, including two Speakers of the House and a Majority
Leader.76 Its actions have ranged from public acknowledgment that it is considering
the merits of a complaint against a Member, to the dismissal of complaint, to the
73
The first admonishments from Committee on Standards of Official Conduct came in 2004
at the conclusion of a formal investigation of allegation related to voting on the Medicare,
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. In its report, which did
not require full House action, the investigative subcommittee noted that “It is the intention
of this investigative subcommittee that publication of this report will serve as a public
admonishment of … [the three Members under investigation] regarding their conduct in this
matter.” See U.S. Congress, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of
Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare, Prescription Drug, Improvement,
and Modernization Act of 2003, report from the Investigative Subcommittee, 108th Cong.,
2nd sess., H.Rept. 108-722 (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 44.
74
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Ethics Manual, p. 11.
See also CRS Report RL31382, Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative
Discipline in the House of Representatives, by Jack Maskell.
75
“Censure Proceedings in the House,” in Guide to Congress, 5th ed., vol. II (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, 2000), p. 935; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, “Historical Summary of Conduct Cases in the House of Representatives
[http://ethics.house.gov/Pubs/Default.aspx?Section=15], visited October 31, 2008. Note that
censure, reprimand, or admonition are traditional ways in which parliamentary bodies have
disciplined their members and maintained order and dignity in their proceedings. In the
House of Representatives, a “censure” is a formal vote by the majority of Members present
and voting on a resolution disapproving a Member’s conduct, with generally the additional
requirement that the Member stand at the “well” of the House chamber to receive a verbal
rebuke and witness the reading of the censure resolution by the Speaker of the House. A
“reprimand” involves a lesser level of disapproval of the conduct of a Member than that of
a “censure,” and is thus a less severe rebuke by the institution. It is of relatively recent
origin. When the House has reprimanded some Members, adoption of the recommendation
of reprimand from the Committee on Standards has constituted the reprimand. For more
information, refer to CRS Report RL31382, Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine:
Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives, by Jack Maskell.
76
This number is an informed estimate based on announcements by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct or House Members who have been the subject of any formal
or informal inquiry. See also footnote 69.
CRS-18
recommendation of punishments discussed above.77 Four Members of the House
have been censured, and two expelled following investigations by the committee.78
The committee’s first announced action was in 1968 at the request of the thenSpeaker John McCormack.79 This was an inquiry into roll-call voting irregularities
that caused some Members who were out of town to be recorded as having voted.
The committee concluded that problem was not deliberate and was the result of an
overworked tally clerk. It also urged the House to install a modernized system of
voting.80
The next announced committee action, in 1975, was its first investigation into
allegations of misconduct by a Member.81 After completing its inquiry on this matter
in 1976, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct recommended and the
House concurred in the reprimand of a Member for financial wrongdoing. This was
the first reprimand of a Member of the House, a sanction now viewed as less severe
than a censure. Adoption by the House of the committee’s report recommending a
reprimand constitutes that punishment, while the censure of a Member involves the
Speaker reading the committee’s finding and censuring the Member, who is required
to stand in the well of the House. Since 1976, seven other Members have been
reprimanded.
The committee has also noted infractions not meriting sanctions for 12
Members. Twenty-five Representatives have left the House after court convictions,
after inquiries were initiated by the committee, or after charges were brought by the
committee but before House action could be completed. In each case, the Members’
departure has ended their cases because the Ethics Committee does not have
jurisdiction over former Members.
In the 97th, 98th, and 109th Congresses the committee conducted investigations
concerning the alleged improper relationship of House Members and congressional
77
See CRS Report RL30764, History of Congressional Ethics Enforcement, by Mildred
Amer.
78
In some cases, the committee has begun an inquiry, but stopped at the request of the
Department of Justice which was also investigating the same Member. See, for example,
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Summary of Activities
One Hundred Third Congress, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 103-873 (Washington: GPO,
1994), pp. 7-8; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
[http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/Press%20Statement%20Renzi.pdf], visited October 31,
2008.
79
“Communication from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,” Congressional
Record, vol. 115, June 19, 1969, p. 16629; and Richard Lyons, “House Set Probe on Ghost
Vote,” The Washington Post and Times-Herald, October 2, 1968, p. A7.
80
Ibid., and “House Group Urges Roll-Call Reform,” The New York Times, December 19,
1968, p. 33.
81
Since this case, the committee has taken some form of public action against 82 other
Representatives. This figure is based on information publicly provided by the committee or
by Members of the House who were the subject of an inquiry or investigation.
CRS-19
pages.82 As a result of the committee’s work during 1982 and 1983, two
Representatives were censured by the House.83
Near the end of the 109th Congress (2006), after reports of alleged improper
communications between a Member of the House and former pages, the House
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct voted unanimously to “establish an
Investigative Subcommittee regarding any conduct of House Members, officers, and
staff related to information concerning improper conduct involving Members and
Current and Former pages.”84 The Investigative Subcommittee issued its report on
December 8, 2006. Although expressing concern over the conduct of some Members,
officers, and employees of the House, it concluded that “no current Members or
employees of the House had violated the House Code of Official Conduct.”85
Although the subcommittee recommended no further investigative proceedings to
determine violations of House rules or standards of conduct, it noted that its report
should serve as a strong reminder to Members, officers, and employees of the
House that they are obligated to pursue specific and non-specific allegations of
improper conduct between a Member or House employee and a participant in the
House Page Program…. The failure to exhaust all reasonable efforts to call
attention to potential misconduct … is a present danger to House pages and to the
integrity of the institution of the House.86
The report also contained recommendations for reforming the operation of the page
program.
Also, in the 98th Congress, the committee conducted an investigation of alleged
improper alterations of House documents. In the 99th Congress, it conducted an
82
See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Summary of
Activities Ninety-Eighth Congress, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-1174 (Washington:
GPO, 1984), pp. 3-4; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, Summary of Activities One Hundred Ninth Congress, 109th Congress, 2nd sess.,
H.Rept. 109-744 (Washington: GPO, 2007), pp. 18-20.
83
The Members involved are included in the count of 83 Members who have been the
subject of an inquiry/investigation and discipline by the committee and the House.
84
“Bipartisan Ethics Committee Launches Investigation of House Page Program
Allegations,” press release, at [http://www.house.gov/ethics/Press_Statement_Page_
Subcomm.htm], visited February 28, 2008; and Charles Babington, “Police Find No Report
of A Foley Dorm Incident,” The Washington Post, October 6, 2006, pp. A1, A4. In addition,
the Justice Department and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement also investigated
the allegations. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct Involving Members and Current
or Former House Pages, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-733 (Washington: GPO, 2006),
pp. 9-10.
85
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of
Allegations Related to Improper Conduct Involving Members and Current or Former House
Pages, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-733 (Washington: GPO, 2006), pp. 2-3.
86
Ibid., p. 3.
CRS-20
investigation of allegations of improper political solicitations. No Members of the
House were implicated in these cases.
In the 102nd Congress, the Ethics Committee considered allegations of
impropriety involving the “bank” of the House of Representatives and found 325
current/former Members had overdrafts during the 39-month period of review, but
no further action was taken by the House in the “bank” matter. Also in the 102nd
Congress, on August 11, 1992, the committee formed a task force to review evidence
to determine the necessity of an investigation of the operations of the House post
office. The committee deferred any action in the post office matter at the request of
the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice has prosecuted some Members
and former Members of the House as a result of its investigations into the House
“bank” and post office.
CRS-21
Table 1. Congressional Committee Assignments
House Standards of Official Conduct Committee
Member
Party State District
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
90th Congress (1967-1969)
Price, C. Melvin
D
IL
24th
May 1, 1967
January 2, 1969
Teague, Olin E.
D
TX
6th
May 1, 1967
January 2, 1969
Evins, Joseph L.
D
TN
4th
May 1, 1967
January 2, 1969
Abbitt, Watkins M.
D
VA
4th
May 1, 1967
January 2, 1969
Aspinall, Wayne N.
D
CO
4th
May 1, 1967
January 2, 1969
Kelly, Edna F.
D
NY
12th
May 1, 1967
January 2, 1969
Halleck, Charles A.
R
IN
2nd
May 1, 1967
January 2, 1969
Arends, Leslie C.
R
IL
17th
May 1, 1967
January 2, 1969
Betts, Jackson E.
R
OH
8th
May 1, 1967
January 2, 1969
Stafford, Robert T.
R
VT
ALa
May 1, 1967
January 2, 1969
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st
May 1, 1967
January 2, 1969
Williams, Lawrence G.
R
PA
7th
May 1, 1967
January 2, 1969
91st Congress (1969-1971)
Price, C. Melvin
D
IL
24th
January 29, 1969
January 2, 1971
Teague, Olin E.
D
TX
6th
January 29, 1969
January 2, 1971
Abbitt, Watkins M.
D
VA
4th
January 29, 1969
January 2, 1971
Aspinall, Wayne N.
D
CO
4th
January 29, 1969
January 2, 1971
Hébert, F. Edward
D
LA
1st
January 29, 1969
January 2, 1971
Holifield, Chet
D
CA
19th
January 29, 1969
January 2, 1971
Arends, Leslie C.
R
IL
17th
January 29, 1969
July 24, 1969
Betts, Jackson E.
R
OH
8th
January 29, 1969
January 2, 1971
Stafford, Robert T.
R
VT
ALa
January 29, 1969
January 2, 1971
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st
January 29, 1969
January 2, 1971
Williams, Lawrence G.
R
PA
7th
January 29, 1969
January 2, 1971
Hutchinson, Edward
R
MI
4th
January 29, 1969
January 2, 1971
Reid, Charlotte T.
R
IL
15th
October 7, 1969
January 2, 1971
CRS-22
Member
Party State District
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
92nd Congress (1971-1973)
Price, C. Melvin
D
IL
24th
February 4, 1971
January 2, 1973
Teague, Olin E.
D
TX
6th
February 4, 1971
January 2, 1973
Abbitt, Watkins M.
D
VA
4th
February 4, 1971
January 2, 1973
Aspinall, Wayne N.
D
CO
4th
February 4, 1971
January 2, 1973
Hébert, F. Edward
D
LA
1st
February 4, 1971
January 2, 1973
Holifield, Chet
D
CA
19th
February 4, 1971
January 2, 1973
Betts, Jackson E.
R
OH
8th
February 4, 1971
January 2, 1973
Stafford, Robert T.
R
VT
ALa
February 4, 1971
September 16, 1971
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st
February 4, 1971
January 2, 1973
Williams, Lawrence G.
R
PA
7th
February 4, 1971
January 2, 1973
Hutchinson, Edward
R
MI
4th
February 4, 1971
January 2, 1973
Reid, Charlotte T.
R
IL
15th
February 4, 1971
October 7, 1971
King, Carleton J.
R
NY
30th
October 27, 1971
January 2, 1973
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
October 27, 1971
January 2, 1973
93rd Congress (1973-1975)
Price, C. Melvin
D
IL
23rd
January 24, 1973
January 2, 1975
Teague, Olin E.
D
TX
6th
January 24, 1973
January 2, 1975
Hébert, F. Edward
D
LA
1st
January 24, 1973
January 2, 1975
Holifield, Chet
D
CA
19th
January 24, 1973
December 31, 1974
Flynt, John James Jr.
D
GA
6th
January 24, 1973
January 2, 1975
Foley, Thomas S.
D
WA
5th
January 24, 1973
January 2, 1975
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st
January 24, 1973
January 2, 1975
Williams, Lawrence G.
R
PA
7th
January 24, 1973
January 2, 1975
Hutchinson, Edward
R
MI
4th
January 24, 1973
January 2, 1975
King, Carleton J.
R
NY
29th
January 24, 1973
December 31, 1974
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
January 24, 1973
January 2, 1975
Hunt, John E.
R
NJ
1st
January 24, 1973
January 2, 1975
CRS-23
Member
Party State District
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
94th Congress (1975-1977)
Price, C. Melvin
D
IL
23rd
January 20, 1975
January 2, 1977
Teague, Olin E.
D
TX
6th
January 20, 1975
January 2, 1977
Hébert, F. Edward
D
LA
1st
January 20, 1975
January 2, 1977
Flynt, John James Jr.
D
GA
6th
January 20, 1975
January 2, 1977
Foley, Thomas S.
D
WA
5th
January 20, 1975
January 2, 1977
Bennett, Charles E.
D
FL
3rd
January 20, 1975
January 2, 1977
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
January 28, 1975
January 2, 1977
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st
January 28, 1975
January 2, 1977
Hutchinson, Edward
R
MI
4th
January 28, 1975
January 2, 1977
Quie, Albert H.
R
MN
1st
January 28, 1975
January 2, 1977
Mitchell, Donald J.
R
NY
31st
January 28, 1975
January 2, 1977
Cochran, Thad
R
MS
4th
January 28, 1975
January 2, 1977
95th Congress (1977-1979)
Flynt, John James Jr.
D
GA
6th
January 19, 1977
January 2, 1979
Teague, Olin E.
D
TX
6th
January 19, 1977
December 31, 1978
Bennett, Charles E
D
FL
3rd
January 19, 1977
January 2, 1979
Hamilton, Lee H.
D
IN
9th
January 19, 1977
January 2, 1979
Preyer, L. Richardson
D
NC
6th
January 19, 1977
January 2, 1979
Flowers, Walter
D
AL
7th
January 19, 1977
January 2, 1979
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
January 19, 1977
January 2, 1979
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st
January 19, 1977
January 2, 1979
Quie, Albert H.
R
MN
1st
January 19, 1977
January 2, 1979
Cochran, Thad
R
MS
4th
January 19, 1977
December 26, 1978
Fenwick, Millicent H.
R
NJ
5th
January 19, 1977
January 2, 1979
Caputo, Bruce F.
R
NY
23rd
January 26, 1977
January 2, 1979
CRS-24
Member
Party State District
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
96th Congress (1979-1981)
Bennett, Charles E.
D
FL
3rd
January 31, 1979
January 2, 1981
Hamilton, Lee H.
D
IN
9th
January 31, 1979
January 2, 1981
Preyer, L. Richardson
D
NC
6th
January 31, 1979
January 2, 1981
Slack, John M. Jr.
D
WV
3rd
January 31, 1979
March 17, 1980
Murphy, Morgan F.
D
IL
2nd
January 31, 1979
December 20, 1979
Murtha, John P. Jr.
D
PA
12th
January 31, 1979
January 2, 1981
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
January 24, 1979
January 2, 1981
Hollenbeck, Harold C.
R
NJ
9th
January 24, 1979
January 2, 1981
Livingston, Robert L.
R
LA
1st
January 24, 1979
January 2, 1981
Thomas, William M.
R
CA
18th
January 24, 1979
January 2, 1981
Sensenbrenner, F. Jas Jr.
R
WI
9th
January 24, 1979
January 2, 1981
Cheney, Richard B.
R
WY
ALa
January 31, 1979
January 2, 1981
Stokes, Louis
D
OH
21st
February 6, 1980
January 2, 1981
Rahall, Nick J. II
D
WV
4th
March 26, 1980
January 2, 1981
97th Congress (1981-1983)
Stokes, Louis
D
OH
21st
January 28, 1981
January 2, 1983
Rahall, Nick J. II
D
WV
4th
January 28, 1981
January 2, 1983
Alexander, William V. Jr.
D
AR
1st
January 28, 1981
January 2, 1983
Wilson, Charles
D
TX
2nd
January 28, 1981
January 2, 1983
Holland, Kenneth L.
D
SC
5th
January 28, 1981
January 2, 1983
Bailey, Donald A.
D
PA
21st
January 28, 1981
January 2, 1983
Spence, Floyd
R
SC
2nd
January 28, 1981
January 2, 1983
Conable, Barber B. Jr.
R
NY
35th
January 28, 1981
January 2, 1983
Myers, John T.
R
IN
7th
January 28, 1981
January 2, 1983
Forsythe, Edwin B.
R
NJ
6th
January 28, 1981
January 2, 1983
Brown, Hank
R
CO
4th
January 28, 1981
January 2, 1983
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
January 28, 1981
January 2, 1983
CRS-25
Member
Party State District
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
98th Congress (1983-1985)
Stokes, Louis
D
OH
21st
January 6, 1983
January 2, 1985
Rahall, Nick J. II
D
WV
4th
January 6, 1983
January 2, 1985
Jenkins, Edgar L.
D
GA
9th
January 6, 1983
January 2, 1985
Dixon, Julian C.
D
CA
28th
January 6, 1983
January 2, 1985
Fazio, Victor H.
D
CA
4th
January 6, 1983
January 2, 1985
Coyne, William J.
D
PA
14th
January 6, 1983
January 2, 1985
Spence, Floyd
R
SC
2nd
January 6, 1983
January 2, 1985
Conable, Barber B. Jr.
R
NY
30th
January 6, 1983
January 2, 1985
Myers, John T.
R
IN
7th
January 6, 1983
January 2, 1985
Forsythe, Edwin B.
R
NJ
13th
January 6, 1983
March 29, 1984
Brown, Hank
R
CO
4th
January 6, 1983
January 2, 1985
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
January 6, 1983
January 2, 1985
Bliley, Thomas J. Jr.
R
VA
3rd
May 9, 1984
January 2, 1985
99th Congress (1985-1987)
Dixon, Julian C.
D
CA
28th
January 7, 1985
January 2, 1987
Jenkins, Edgar L.
D
GA
9th
January 30, 1985
January 2, 1987
Fazio, Victor H.
D
CA
4th
January 30, 1985
January 2, 1987
Coyne, William J.
D
PA
14th
January 30, 1985
January 2, 1987
Dwyer, Bernard J.
D
NJ
6th
January 30, 1985
January 2, 1987
Mollohan, Alan B.
D
WV
1st
January 30, 1985
January 2, 1987
Spence, Floyd
R
SC
2nd
January 30, 1985
January 2, 1987
Myers, John T.
R
IN
7th
January 30, 1985
January 2, 1987
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
January 30, 1985
January 2, 1987
Whitehurst, G. William
R
VA
2nd
January 30, 1985
January 2, 1987
Pursell, Carl D.
R
MI
2nd
January 30, 1985
January 2, 1987
Wortley, George
R
NY
27th
January 30, 1985
January 2, 1987
CRS-26
Member
Party State District
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
100th Congress (1987-1989)
Dixon, Julian C.
D
CA
28th
February 19, 1987
January 2, 1989
Fazio, Victor H.
D
CA
4th
February 19, 1987
January 2, 1989
Dwyer, Bernard J.
D
NJ
6th
February 19, 1987
January 2, 1989
Mollohan, Alan B.
D
WV
1st
February 19, 1987
January 2, 1989
Gaydos, Joseph M.
D
PA
20th
February 19, 1987
January 2, 1989
Atkins, Chester G.
D
MA
5th
February 19, 1987
January 2, 1989
Spence, Floyd
R
SC
2nd
January 21, 1987
June 1, 1988
Myers, John T.
R
IN
7th
January 21, 1987
January 2, 1989
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
January 21, 1987
January 2, 1989
Pashayan, Charles S. Jr.
R
CA
17th
January 21, 1987
January 2, 1989
Petri, Thomas E.
R
WI
6th
January 21, 1987
January 2, 1989
Craig, Larry E.
R
ID
1st
January 21, 1987
January 2, 1989
Brown, Hank
R
CO
4th
June 2, 1988
January 2, 1989
101st Congress (1989-1991)
Dixon, Julian C.
D
CA
29th
January 3, 1989
January 2, 1991
Fazio, Victor H.
D
CA
4th
January 3, 1989
January 2, 1991
Dwyer, Bernard J.
D
CA
29th
January 3, 1989
January 2, 1991
Mollohan, Alan B.
D
NJ
6th
January 3, 1989
January 2, 1991
Gaydos, Joseph M.
D
WV
1st
January 3, 1989
January 2, 1991
Atkins, Chester G.
D
PA
20th
January 3, 1989
January 2, 1991
Stokes, Louisb
D
OH
21st
September 13, 1989
July 26, 1990
Myers, John T.
R
IN
7th
January 3, 1989
January 2, 1991
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
January 3, 1989
January 2, 1991
Pashayan, Charles S. Jr.
R
CA
17th
January 3, 1989
January 2, 1991
Petri, Thomas E.
R
WI
6th
January 3, 1989
January 2, 1991
Craig, Larry E.
R
ID
1st
January 3, 1989
January 2, 1991
Grandy, Fred
R
IA
6th
January 3, 1989
January 2, 1991
CRS-27
Member
Party State District
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
102nd Congress (1991-1993)
Stokes, Louis
D
OH
21st
February 6, 1991
January 2, 1993
Ackerman, Gary L.
D
NY
7th
February 6, 1991
July 4, 1992
Darden, George (Buddy)
D
GA
7th
February 6, 1991
July 4, 1992
Cardin, Benjamin L.
D
MD
3rd
February 6, 1991
January 2, 1993
Pelosi, Nancy
D
CA
5th
February 6, 1991
January 2, 1993
McDermott, Jim
D
WA
7th
February 6, 1991
January 2, 1993
Mfume, Kweisic
D
MD
7th
October 9, 1991
January 2, 1993
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
February 6, 1991
January 2, 1993
Grandy, Fred
R
IA
6th
February 6, 1991
January 2, 1993
Johnson, Nancy
R
CT
6th
February 6, 1991
January 2, 1993
Bunning, Jim
R
KY
4th
February 6, 1991
January 2, 1993
Kyl, Jon L.
R
AZ
4th
February 6, 1991
January 2, 1993
Goss, Porter J.
R
FL
13th
February 6, 1991
January 2, 1993
Hobson, David L.
R
OH
7th
February 6, 1991
January 2, 1993
103rd Congress (1993-1995)
McDermott, Jim
D
WA
7th
February 4, 1993
January 2, 1995
Darden, George (Buddy)
D
GA
7th
February 4, 1993
January 2, 1995
Cardin, Benjamim L.
D
MD
3rd
February 4, 1993
January 2, 1995
Nancy, Pelosi
D
CA
5th
February 4, 1993
January 2, 1995
Mfume, Kweisi
D
MD
7th
February 4, 1993
January 2, 1995
Borski, Robert A.
D
PA
3rd
February 4, 1993
January 2, 1995
Sawyer, Thomas C.
D
OH
14th
February 4, 1993
January 2, 1995
Grandy, Fred
R
IA
6th
January 5, 1993
January 2, 1995
Johnson, Nancy L.
R
CT
6th
January 5, 1993
January 2, 1995
Bunning, Jim
R
KY
4th
January 5, 1993
January 2, 1995
Kyl, Jon L.
R
AZ
4th
January 5, 1993
January 2, 1995
Goss, Porter J.
R
FL
13th
January 5, 1993
January 2, 1995
Hobson, David L.
R
OH
7th
January 5, 1993
January 2, 1995
CRS-28
Member
Schiff, Steven
Party State District
R
NY
1st
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
February 4, 1993
January 2, 1995
104th Congress (1995-1997)d
Johnson, Nancy L.
R
CT
6th
January 20, 1995
January 21, 1997
Bunning, Jim
R
KY
4th
January 20, 1995
January 9, 1997
Goss, Porter J.
R
FL
13th
January 20, 1995
January 21, 1997
Hobson, David L.
R
OH
7th
January 20, 1995
January 15, 1997
Schiff, Steven
R
NM
1st
January 20, 1995
January 21, 1997
Smith, Lamar S.e
R
TX
21st
January 9, 1997
January 21, 1997
McDermott, Jimf
D
WA
7th
January 20, 1995
January 14, 1997
Cardin, Benjamin L.
D
MD
3rd
January 20, 1995
January 21, 1997
Pelosi, Nancy
D
CA
5th
January 20, 1995
January 21, 1997
Borski, Robert A.
D
PA
3rd
January 20, 1995
January 21, 1997
Sawyer, Thomas C.
D
OH
14th
January 20, 1995
January 21, 1997
105th Congress (1997-1999)
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
January 9, 1997
January 2, 1999
Smith, Lamar S.
R
TX
21st
September 29, 1997
January 2, 1999
Hefley, Joel
R
CO
5th
September 29, 1997
January 2, 1999
Goodlatte, Robert
R
VA
6th
September 29, 1997
January 2, 1999
Knollenberg, Joe
R
MI
11th
September 29, 1997
January 2, 1999
Berman, Howard L.
D
CA
26th
February 10, 1997
January 2, 1999
Sabo, Martin O.
D
MN
5th
September 29, 1997
January 2, 1999
Pastor, Ed
D
AZ
2nd
September 29, 1997
January 2, 1999
Fattah, Chaka
D
PA
2nd
September 29, 1997
January 2, 1999
Lofgren, Zoe
D
CA
16th
September 29, 1997
January 2, 1999
106th Congress (1999-2001)
Smith, Lamar S.
R
TX
21st
January 6, 1999
January 2, 2001
Hefley, Joel
R
CO
5th
January 19, 1999
January 2, 2001
Knollenberg, Joe
R
MI
11th
January 19, 1999
January 2, 2001
Portman, Robert J.
R
OH
2nd
January 19, 1999
January 2, 2001
CRS-29
Member
Party State District
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
Camp, Dave
R
MI
4th
January 19, 1999
January 2, 2001
Berman, Howard L.
D
CA
26th
January 6, 1999
January 2, 2001
Sabo, Martin O.
D
MN
5th
January 6, 1999
January 2, 2001
Pastor, Ed
D
AZ
2nd
January 6, 1999
January 2, 2001
Fattah, Chaka
D
PA
2nd
January 6, 1999
January 2, 2001
Lofgren, Zoe
D
CA
16th
January 6, 1999
January 2, 2001
107th Congress (2001-2003)
Hefley, Joel
R
CO
5th
January 20, 2001
January 2, 2003
Portman, Robert J.
R
OH
2nd
March 6, 2001
July 11, 2001
Hastings, Doc
R
WA
4th
March 6, 2001
January 2, 2003
Hutchison, Asa
R
AR
3rd
March 6, 2001
August 6, 2001
Biggert, Judy
R
IL
13th
March 6, 2001
January 2, 2003
Hulshof, Kenny
R
MO
9th
July 11, 2001
January 2, 2003
LaTourette, Steve
R
OH
19th
October 10, 2001
January 2, 2003
Berman, Howard
D
CA
26th
January 20, 2001
January 2, 2003
Sabo, Martin
D
MN
5th
March 6, 2001
August 1, 2001
Pastor, Ed
D
AZ
2nd
March 6, 2001
January 2, 2003
Lofgren, Zoe
D
CA
16th
March 6, 2001
January 2, 2003
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs
D
OH
11th
March 14, 2001
January 2, 2003
Green, Gene
D
TX
29th
July 11, 2001
January 2, 2003
108th Congress (2003-2005)
Hefley, Joel
R
CO
5th
January 8, 2003
January 2, 2005
Hastings, Doc
R
WA
4th
February 11, 2003
January 2, 2005
Biggert, Judy
R
IL
13th
February 11, 2003
January 2, 2005
Hulshof, Kenny
R
MO
9th
February 11, 2003
January 2, 2005
LaTourette, Steve
R
OH
19th
February 11, 2003
January 2, 2005
Berman, Howard
D
CA
26th
January 8, 2003
February 26, 2003
Mollohan, Alan B.
D
WV
1st
February 5, 2003
January 2, 2005
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs
D
OH
11th
March 6, 2003
January 2, 2005
CRS-30
Member
Party State District
Began
Assignment
Ended
Assignment
Green, Gene
D
TX
29th
March 6, 2003
January 2, 2005
Roybal-Allard, Lucille
D
CA
34th
March 6, 2003
January 2, 2005
Doyle, Michael F.
D
PA
14th
March 6, 2003
January 2, 2005
109th Congress (2005-2007)
Hastings, Doc
R
WA
4th
February 2, 2005
January 2, 2007
Biggert, Judy
R
IL
13th
February 2, 2005
January 2, 2007
Smith, Lamar
R
TX
21st
February 2, 2005
January 2, 2007
Hart, Melissa
R
TX
4th
February 2, 2005
January 2, 2007
Cole, Tom
R
OK
4th
February 2, 2005
January 2, 2007
Mollohan, Alan B.
D
WV
1st
January 26, 2005
April 25, 2006
Berman, Howardg
D
CA
28th
April 26, 2006
January 2, 2007
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs
D
OH
11th
February 9, 2005
January 2, 2007
Green, Gene
D
TX
29th
February 9, 2005
January 2, 2007
Roybal-Allard, Lucille
D
CA
34th
February 9, 2005
January 2, 2007
Doyle, Michael F.
D
PA
14th
February 9, 2005
January 2, 2007
110th Congress (2007-2009)
Jones, Stephanie Tubbsh
D
OH
11th
January 4, 2007
August 20, 2008
Green, Geneh
D
TX
29th
February 8, 2007
-
Roybal-Allard, Lucille
D
CA
34th
February 8, 2007
-
Doyle, Michael F.
D
PA
14th
February 8, 2007
-
Delahunt, William D.
D
MA
10th
February 8, 2008
-
Scott, Robert C. “Bobby”
D
VA
3rd
September 11, 2008
-
Hastings, Doc
R
WA
4th
January 4, 2007
-
Bonner, Jo
R
AL
1st
February 12, 2007
-
Barrett, J. Gresham
R
SC
3rd
February 12, 2007
-
Kline, John
R
MN
2nd
February 12, 2007
-
McCaul, Michael T.
R
TX
10th
February 12, 2007
-
a. Representative At Large, i.e. the state’s only Member of the House.
b. Appointed to serve in place of Representative Chester Atkins.
c. Appointed to serve in place of Representative Louis Stokes, and appointed to replace
Representative Gary L. Ackerman in the 102nd Congress on August 11, 1992.
CRS-31
d. Most of the Members of the Committee from the 104th Congress were appointed to the Select
Committee on Ethics in the 105th Congress, which existed from January 7, 1997, to January 21,
1997. This select committee was established to resolve the Statement of Alleged Violations
issued in the 104th Congress by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct against the
Speaker of the House. This select committee expired on January 21, 1997, with the House
approving a reprimand against the Speaker.
e. Appointed to the Select Committee on Ethics to complete the investigation begun by the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct.
f. Representative Jim McDermott was briefly replaced on the committee (July 23, 1996-July 24, 1996)
by Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) during a committee inquiry involving Representative
McDermott.
g. Representative Howard Berman was appointed as the ranking member of the committee after
Representative Alan
Mollohan resigned from the committee.
h. Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones died on August 20, 2008, and Representative Gene Green
is serving as acting chairman for the remainder of the 110th Congress. Its Evolution and
Jurisdiction
Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress
August 2, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
98-15
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Summary
The United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 5, clause 1) provides each House of Congress
with the sole authority to establish rules, judge membership requirements, and punish and expel
Members. From 1789 to 1967, the House of Representatives dealt with disciplinary action against
Members on a case-by-case basis, often forming ad-hoc committees to investigate and make
recommendations when acts of wrongdoing were brought to the chamber’s attention. Events of
the 1960’s, including the investigation of Representative Adam Clayton Powell for alleged misuse
of Education and Labor Committee funds, prompted the creation of a permanent ethics committee
and the writing of a Code of Conduct for Members, officers, and staff of the House.
Begun as a select committee in the 89th Congress (1965-1966), the House created a 12-member
panel to “recommend to the House … such … rules or regulations … necessary or desirable to
insure proper standards of conduct by Members of the House and by officers and employees of
the House, in the performance of their duties and the discharge of their responsibilities.” Acting
on the select committee’s recommendations, the House created a permanent Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct in the 90th Congress (1967-1968).
This report briefly outlines the background of ethics enforcement in the House of
Representatives, including the creation of both the Select Committee on Ethics and the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The report also focuses on various jurisdictional
and procedural changes that the committee has experienced since 1967 and discusses the
committee’s current jurisdiction and procedures.
For additional information on ethics in the House of Representatives, please refer to CRS Report
R40760, House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures, by Jacob R.
Straus; 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 RL31382,
Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of
Representatives, by Jack Maskell.
Congressional Research Service
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Creating a Permanent Ethics Committee......................................................................................2
Select Committee on Standards and Conduct.........................................................................3
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.........................................................................4
Jurisdiction .................................................................................................................................6
Changes in Jurisdiction .........................................................................................................8
Lobbying and Campaign Finance ....................................................................................8
Rules of Conduct ............................................................................................................9
Additional Authorities ...........................................................................................................9
Procedures ................................................................................................................................ 10
Changes in the 1970’s ......................................................................................................... 11
Ethics Reform Act of 1989 .................................................................................................. 11
Ethics Reform Task Force ................................................................................................... 13
109th Congress Changes ...................................................................................................... 15
Office of Congressional Ethics ............................................................................................ 15
Tables
Table A-1. Congressional Committee Assignments: House Standards of Official Conduct
Committee ............................................................................................................................. 18
Appendixes
Appendix. Membership on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 1967-2010........... 18
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 27
Congressional Research Service
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Introduction
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison noted the importance of participation by upstanding
citizens at all levels of government as a condition for legitimate governance. “The aim of every
political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to
discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take
the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public
trust.”1
To ensure that Members of Congress upheld high standards, the Constitution provides sole
authority to establish rules, judge membership requirements, and punish and expel Members of
the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively. Article I, Section 5, clause 1 provides
that “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own
Members.”2 In addition, 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.”3 Congress used their ability to establish ethics rules and to punish
individual Members sparingly in the 18th and 19th centuries. 4
As former Senate historian Richard Baker observed on the subject of congressional ethics, “[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.”5 During that time,
Congress often dealt with potential ethics issues “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.’”6
Events in the 1960s, including the investigation of Representative Adam Clayton Powell’s alleged
misuse of Education and Labor Committee funds, 7 prompted a special subcommittee of the
Committee on House Administration to investigate the allegations and the potential creation of an
ethics committee to establish a code of conduct for the House of Representatives. 8
This report examines the history and evolution of the House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct including the committee’s jurisdiction and investigative procedure. It does not deal with
1
James Madison, “Federalist No. 57, The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the
Many Considered in Connection with Representation,” The Federalist Papers, February 19, 1788, from the New York
Packet, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_57.html.
2
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.
3
Ibid.
4
U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, History of the United States House of Representatives,
1789-1994, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 103-324 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 293.
5
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”].
6
Ibid., p. 3.
7
U.S. Congress, House Select Committee Pursuant to House Resolution 1, In Re Adam Clayton Powell, report to
accompany H.Res. 278, 90th Cong., 1st sess., February 23, 1967, H.Rept. 90-27 (Washington: GPO, 1967); and Powell
v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).
8
Robert V. Remini, The House: The History of the House of Representatives (Washington: Smithsonian Books, 2006),
p. 414.
Congressional Research Service
1
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
changes to federal or state criminal law or with criminal prosecutions of Members of Congress or
with the specifics of disciplinary cases in the House. 9
Creating a Permanent Ethics Committee
Prior to the creation of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 90th
Congress (1967-1968), no uniform mechanism existed for self-discipline in the House of
Representatives. Congress, however, had previously attempted to create an ethical framework for
House Members and employees. In 1958, Congress established the first Code of Ethics for
Government Service.10 Initially proposed in 1951 by Representative Charles Bennett, the Code of
Ethics was adopted as a result of 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. 11 The Code of Ethics for Government Service standards continue to
be recognized as ethical guidance in the House and Senate. They are, however, not legally
binding because the code was adopted by congressional resolution, not by law. 12
In the period preceding the creation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in 1967,
investigations into alleged wrongdoing by Members and staff of the House were dealt with in an
ad-hoc fashion.13 There were, however, attempts to create a more uniform system to investigate
and discipline Members and staff.14 For example, during hearings before the Joint Committee on
the Organization of Congress in 1965, considerable testimony was presented on the ethical
conduct of Members, and the need for House and Senate codes of conduct, financial disclosure
regulations, and a House Ethics Committee (the Senate had created one in 1964).15 In its final
report, the Joint Committee called for the creation of a Committee on Standards and Conduct in
the House. 16
9
For more information on Members indicted or convicted of a felony, see CRS Report RL33229, Status of a Member
of the House 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 Congressional Rules of Conduct: An Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus.
10
72 Stat. B12, H.Con.Res. 175, July 11, 1958. See also “Code of Ethics For Government Service,” House proceeding,
Congressional Record, vol. 103, part 12 (August 28, 1957), p. 16297; and “Code of Ethics For Government Service,”
Senate proceeding, Congressional Record, vol. 104, part 10 (July 11, 1958), p. 13556.
11
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.
12
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
Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rept. 95-1314 (Washington: GPO, 1975), pp. 5-6.
13
Baker, “The History of Congressional Ethics,” p. 4.
14
“Ethics,” in Congress and the Nation, 1945-1964 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc, 1965), p. 1409.
15
U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Index to Hearings Before the Joint Committee on
the Organization of Congress, pursuant to S.Res. 2, hearings 89th Cong, 1st and 2nd sess., various dates 1965 and 1966,
part 16 (Washington: GPO, 1966), p. 45.
16
U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of Congress, final report pursuant to
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Select Committee on Standards and Conduct
On September 2, 1966, following publicized allegations of misconduct by House Education and
Labor Committee Chair Adam Clayton Powell, Representative Charles Bennett introduced H.Res.
1013 to create a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, which was referred to the
Committee on Rules.17 On September 7, the Committee on Rules reported the resolution “with
the recommendation that the resolution do pass.”18 On October 19, the House debated, amended,
and agreed to H.Res. 1013, creating the select committee. 19
As adopted, the resolution created a 12-member panel, with six majority and six minority
Members appointed by the Speaker of the House. The Select Committee was charged with two
duties. They were to
(1) recommend to the House, by report or resolution such additional rules or regulations as
the Select Committee shall determine to be necessary or desirable to insure proper standards
of conduct by Members of the House and by officers or employees of the House, in the
performance of their duties and the discharge of their responsibilities; and
(2) report violations, by a majority vote of the Select Committee, of any law to the proper
Federal and State authorities.20
Pursuant to H.Res. 1013, the report on the Select Committee’s activities at the end of the 89th
Congress (1965-1966) included recommendations for House action on ethics-related matters.
Because the select committee only existed between October and December 1966, the committee
concluded that they could not “prudently recommend changes in existing provisions of law or
recommend new ones at this time.”21 Instead, they recommended that (1) the committee be
continued as a select committee in the 90th Congress; (2) legislation introduced in the 90th
Congress on standards and conduct should be referred to the select committee; and (3) Members
of the House should be asked for suggested changes in existing statutes. In addition, the report
included draft language for the continuation of the select committee.22
(...continued)
S.Res. 2, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 89-1414 (Washington: GPO, 1966), p. 48.
17
“Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 112, part 16 (September 2, 1966), p. 21738.
18
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, report to
accompany H.Res. 1013, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., September 7, 1966, H.Rept. 89-2012 (Washington: GPO, 1966); and
Rep. Claude Pepper, “Creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct,” remarks in the House, Congressional
Record, vol. 112, part 16 (September 7, 1966), p. 21949.
19
“Creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 112, part 20
(October 19, 1966), pp. 27713-27730.
20
U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Report of the Select Committee on Standards
and Conduct of the House of Representatives, under the authority of H.Res. 1013, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., December 27,
1966, H.Rept. 89-2338 (Washington: GPO, 1966), p. vii.
21
U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Report Under the Authority of H.Res. 1013, 89th
Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 89-2338 (Washington: GPO, 1966), p. 1.
22
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
3
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
In the first session of the 90th Congress (1967-1966), more than 100 resolutions were introduced
to create a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. One of these proposals, H.Res. 18, was
introduced on January 10, 1967, by Representative Charles Bennett, chair of the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct in the 89th Congress.23 H.Res. 18 was referred to the
Committee on Rules, which held a series of hearings on this and other similar resolutions in
February and March 1967.24
During the hearings, the Committee on Rules heard from numerous Members of the House and
considered proposals to create both a select and a standing committee on standards and conduct.
Representative Bennett, the sponsor of H.Res. 18, argued that a standards committee would be
essential to aid the House in dealing with issues of perceived and actual impropriety by Members.
He testified:
The public image of Congress demands that the House establish a full, working, thoughtful
committee working solely in the field of standards and conduct. Sixty percent of those
answering a recent Gallup poll said they believe the misuse of Government funds by
Congressmen is fairly common. Of course, we know that such abuses are, in fact, not
common, but we have seen a number of such damaging polls showing the people’s lack of
faith in the integrity of Congress.
There is a need for a vehicle in the House to achieve and maintain the highest possible
standards by statute and enforcement thereof. This can only be done after through study by a
committee whose primary interests are in the field of ethics.25
On April 6, 1967, following its hearings on H.Res. 18 and other similar resolutions, the House
Rules Committee reported H.Res. 418,26 “to establish a standing committee to be known as the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.”27
23
“Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 113, part 1 (January 10, 1967), p. 130.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, hearing on
H.Res. 18 and Similar Measures, 90th Cong., 1st sess., February 21 and 22, 1967 (Washington: GPO, 1967); U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Rules, Creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct: Part 2, hearing on
H.Res. 18 and similar measures, 90th Cong., 1st sess., February 28, 1967 (Washington: GPO, 1967); and U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Rules, Creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct: Part 3, hearings on H.Res. 18
and similar measures, 90th Cong., 1st sess., March 7, 8, 14, and 15, 1967 (Washington: GPO, 1967).
25
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, hearing on
H.Res. 18 and Similar Measures, 90th Cong., 1st sess., February 21 and 22, 1967 (Washington: GPO, 1967), p 8.
24
26
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Establishing a Standing Committee to be Known as the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.Res. 418, 90th Cong., 1st sess., April 6,
1967, H.Rept. 90-178 (Washington: GPO, 1967). For more information on the Committee on Rules ability to issue
privileged reports in the 90th Congress, see Rule XI, clause 22 (90th Congress) in U.S. Congress, House, Constitution,
Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States Ninetieth Congress, prepared by
Lewis Deschler, Parliamentarian, 89th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1967), pp. 360-361.
27
Rep. William Colmer, “To Establish a Standing Committee to be Known as the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, and for Other Purposes,” Congressional Record, vol. 113, part 7 (April 6, 1967), p. 8622; and Rep. William
Colmer, “Establishing a Standing Committee on Standards and Conduct,” Journal of the House of Representatives of
the United States, 90th cong., 1st sess., (April 6, 1967), p. 463.
Congressional Research Service
4
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
On April 13, the House debated and passed H.Res. 418 by a vote of 400 to zero. 28 The resolution
created a bipartisan 12-member standing committee with the initial mission to make
“recommendations for its jurisdiction”29 and to “recommend as soon as practicable to the House
of Representatives such changes in laws, rules, and regulations as the committee deems necessary
to establish and enforce standards of official conduct for Members, officers and employees of the
House.”30 The first members of the committee were appointed on May 1 with the passage of
H.Res. 457 (majority members)31 and H.Res. 458 (minority members). 32
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Committee on Standards) held its first hearings
in the summer and fall of 1967.33 The hearings were designed to help the committee meet the
requirements of H.Res. 418 “to write, and recommend to the House, a set of standards for the
official conduct of the Chambers’ Members and employees.”34
In March 1968, the Committee issued a report summarizing their activities and recommending
•
continuation of the committee as a select committee;
•
changes in the committee’s jurisdiction and powers;
•
creation of a Code of Official Conduct and financial disclosure rules for
Members, officers, and employees of the House;
•
establishment of standardized controls by the Committee on House
Administration over committees using counterpart funds (foreign currencies held
by U.S. embassies that can only be spent in the country of origin);
•
a prompt review of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (reporting of campaign
expenditures) by the House;35 and
•
compliance by House candidates with applicable provisions of the proposed
Code of Official Conduct.36
28
“Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 113, part 7 (April 13,
1967), pp. 9426-9448.
29
Ibid., p. 9426.
30
“Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,” Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 90th
cong., 1st sess., (April 13, 1967), p. 488.
31
Rep. Wilber Mills, “Election to Committee—Majority,” Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States,
90th cong., 1st sess. (May 1, 1967), p. 539. The Majority committee Members were Representatives Melvin Price
(chair), Olin Teague, Joe Evins, Watkins Abbitt, Wayne Aspinall, and Edna Kelly.
32
Rep. Gerald Ford, “Election to Committee—Minority,” Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States,
90th cong., 1st sess. (May 1, 1967), p. 539. The Minority committee Members were Representatives Charles Halleck,
Leslie Arends, Jackson Betts, Robert Stafford, James Quillen, and Lawrence Williams.
33
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Standards of Official Conduct, hearings, 90th
Cong., 1st sess., August 16-17, 23-24, and September 14, 21, and 27, 1967 (Washington: GPO, 1967).
34
Ibid., p. 1.
35
The Corrupt Practices Act (P.L. 61-274, 36 Stat. 822, June 25, 1910) was repealed by the Federal Election Campaign
Act in 1971 (P.L. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3, February 7, 1972; 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq., as amended).
36
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Code of Conduct for Members and Employees of
the House, report under the authority of H.Res. 418, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 90-1176 (Washington: GPO, 1968),
pp. 7-11.
Congressional Research Service
5
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
On March 14, 1968, Representative Melvin Price, chair of the Committee on Standards,
introduced H.Res. 1099 “to continue the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as a
permanent standing committee of the House of Representatives.”37 The resolution was referred to
the Committee on Rules, which reported the resolution with amendments on April 1.38 On April 3,
the Committee on Rules reported a special rule (H.Res. 1119) for the consideration of H.Res.
1099. Following adoption of H.Res. 1119, debate on H.Res. 1099 began. In his opening
statement, Representative Price discussed the reasons for amending H.Res. 418 and making the
committee a permanent, standing committee of the House.
The reason for amending that original resolution, as opposed to offering a completely new
resolution, is that the committee felt it would be advantageous—from the standpoints of
continuity and orderliness—to extend the life of the existing committee rather than constitute
a new committee.39
Following the adoption of several amendments, H.Res. 1099 was agreed to by a vote of 406 to
1.40 The resolution provided for (1) continuation of the Committee on Standards as a permanent
standing House committee; (2) enumeration of the committee’s jurisdiction and powers; (3) the
creation of the first House Code of Official Conduct (Rule XLIII);41 and (4) the adoption of the
first financial disclosure requirements for Members, officers, and designated employees (Rule
XLIV).42
Jurisdiction
In addition to establishing the Committee on Standards as a permanent standing committee,
H.Res. 1099 formalized the committee’s jurisdiction. The History of the United States House of
Representatives, 1789-1994, published by the Committee on House Administration in the 103rd
37
“Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, part 5 (March 14, 1968), p. 6503.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Amending H.Res. 418, 90th Congress, to Continue the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct as a Permanent Standing Committee of the House of Representatives, and for Other
Purposes, report to accompany H.Res. 1099, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 90-1248 (Washington: GPO, 1968). See also
“Reports of Committees on Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, part 7 (April 1, 1968), p.
8406.
39
Rep. Melvin Price, “Standards of Official Conduct,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 114, part 7 (April 3,
1968), p. 8778.
40
Ibid., p. 8812.
38
41
Rule XLIII is currently codified as Rule XXIII. For the original text of the Code of Official Conduct, see U.S.
Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States
Ninety-First Congress, Lewis Deschler, Parliamentarian, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 90-402 (Washington: GPO,
1969), pp. 499a-499b. For current Code of Official Conduct language, see U.S. Congress, House, Constitution,
Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives One Hundred Eleventh Congress of the United States,
John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 110-162 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 918-928; and
CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: An Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus.
42
H.Res. 1099 (90th Congress), agreed to April 3, 1968. Rule XLIV is currently codified as Rule XXVI. For the
original text of Financial Disclosure requirements, see U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and
Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States Ninety-First Congress, Lewis Deschler, Parliamentarian,
90th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 90-402 (Washington: GPO, 1969), pp. 499c-499f. For current Code of Official Conduct
language, see U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives One
Hundred Eleventh Congress of the United States, John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 110162 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 962-986.
Congressional Research Service
6
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Congress (1993-1994), summarized four major jurisdictional areas for the Committee on
Standards.
Since 1968, the House has authorized and directed the Ethics Committee to: (1) recommend
to the House legislative or administrative actions deemed necessary for establishing or
enforcing standards of conduct; (2) investigate allegations of violations of the Code of
Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to
Members, officers, and employees in the performance of official duties; and after notice and
a hearing, recommend to the House whatever action or sanctions it deems appropriate; (3)
subject to House approval, report to appropriate state and federal authorities about evidence
of violations of law by Members, officers, and employees in the performance of official
duties;43 and (4) issue and publish advisory opinions for the guidance of Members, officers,
and employees.44
The committee was also provided with jurisdiction over the Code of Official Conduct and
financial disclosure.45
In addition to establishing the jurisdiction of the committee, H.Res. 1099, and subsequent
amendments, imposed several constraints on the Committee on Standards. These limits, except
where noted, are still in effect in House Rule XI, clause 3(a). They stipulate that
•
there must be an affirmative vote of seven out of 12 committee members for the
issuance of any report, resolution, recommendation, or advisory opinion relating
to the official conduct of a Member, officer, or employee or the investigation of
such conduct;46
•
investigations, other than those initiated by the committee, can be undertaken
only upon receipt of a complaint, in writing and under oath, from a Member of
the House, or an individual not a Member if the committee finds that such
complaint has been submitted by the individual to no fewer than three Members
who have refused in writing to transmit the complaint to the committee;47
•
investigations of alleged violations of any law or rule that was not in effect at the
time of the alleged violation are prohibited;48 and
43
With the adoption of H.Res. 168 (105th Congress) on September 18, 1997, the House voted to permit an affirmative
vote of two-thirds of the full Standards Committee or the approval of the House for the referral of evidence of
violations of law to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.
44
U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, History of the United States House of Representatives, 17891994, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 103-324 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 298.
45
Ibid.
46
The seven Member requirement was replaced in 1974 with “an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the
committee” to accommodate any subsequent changes in the committee’s size (H.Res. 998, agreed to October 8, 1974).
In 1991, pursuant to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the membership was increased to 14. However, in 1997, with the
adoption of the recommendation of the Ethics Reform Task Force (H.Res. 168), the membership was reduced to 10.
Also in the 105th Congress (1997-1999), the House permitted the chair and raking minority member to gather additional
information or establish an investigative subcommittee for a properly filed complaint (H.Res. 168, sec. 11, agreed to
September 18, 1997).
47
H.Res. 168 (105th Congress), agreed to September 18, 1997, changed the requirements for the filing of complaints by
non-Members to require that such complaints be transmitted by a Member who “certifies in writing to the committee
that he or she believes the information is submitted in good faith and warrants the review and consideration of the
Committee.”
48
This rule was expanded by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 to include a statute of limitations of three previous
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
•
members of the committee are not eligible to participate in any committee
proceeding relating to their official conduct.49
H.Res. 1099 also empowered the committee to hold hearings, receive testimony, and issue
subpoenas in the course of conducting an investigation. 50
When discussing the jurisdiction of House committees, it is important to note that the House
Parliamentarian is the sole definitive authority on questions relating to the jurisdiction of the
chamber’s committees and should be consulted for a formal opinion on any specific procedural
question. 51
Changes in Jurisdiction
Since the establishment of the Committee on Standards as a permanent standing committee, the
committee’s jurisdiction has been amended a number of times. Each of these changes
“necessitated following experience under prior rules”52 and reflected the changing nature of ethics
enforcement in the House.
Lobbying and Campaign Finance
On May 19, 1970, Representative William Colmer introduced H.Res. 1031 to amend then clause
19 of Rule XI of the House “with respect of lobbying practices and political campaign
contributions affecting the House of Representatives.”53 The Committee on Rules reported the
resolution on June 11,54 and it was brought up for debate on July 8. Following debate, the
(...continued)
Congresses for investigations of alleged violations (P.L. 101-194, sec. 803(g), 103 Stat. 1775, November 30, 1989).
49
Committee rule 9, clauses (d) and (e) require that a committee Member under investigation or who has a conflict of
interest with an investigation be excluded from those proceedings. The rule states: “(d) A member of the Committee
shall be ineligible to participate in any Committee or subcommittee proceeding in which such Member is the
respondent;” and “(e) A member of the Committee may seek disqualification from participating in any investigation of
the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives upon the submission in writing and
under oath of an affidavit of disqualification stating that the member cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision.
If the Committee approves and accepts such affidavit of disqualification, the Chair shall so notify the Speaker and ask
the Speaker to designate a Member of the House of Representatives from the same political party as the disqualified
member of the Committee to act as a member of the Committee in any Committee proceeding relating to such
investigation” (U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Rules, 111th Cong., 1st sess., June
9, 2009 (http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/111th_Rules_Amended_June_2009.pdf), pp. 16-17.
50
U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, History of the United States House of Representatives, 17891994, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 103-324 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 298.
51
For more information on the Parliamentarian of the House and the referral process, see CRS Report RS20544, The
Office of the Parliamentarian in the House and Senate, by Valerie Heitshusen and CRS Report 98-175, House
Committee Jurisdiction and Referral: Rules and Practice, by Judy Schneider.
52
U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual: 2008 Edition, 110th
Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 8.
53
“Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 116, part. 12 (May 19, 1970), p. 16193.
54
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Amending Clause 19 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives with Respect of Lobbying Practices and Political Campaign Contributions Affecting the House of
Representatives and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.Res. 1031, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., June 11, 1970,
H.Rept. 91-1186 (Washington: GPO, 1970).
Congressional Research Service
8
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
resolution was adopted to give the Committee on Standards formal jurisdiction over lobbying
activities as well as those involving the raising, reporting, and use of campaign funds. 55
Authority over campaign contributions, lobbying, and financial disclosure have subsequently
been removed from the committee’s jurisdiction. In the 94th Congress (1975-1976), the House
transferred jurisdiction over campaign contributions to the Committee on House Administration
as part of the rules package.56 In the 95th Congress (1977-1978), the House transferred jurisdiction
over lobbying to the Committee on the Judiciary57 and jurisdiction over measures relating to
financial disclosure was reassigned to the Committee on Rules.58
Rules of Conduct
On March 2, 1977, the House adopted H.Res. 287, which contained several amendments and
additions to the House rules of conduct.59 Included were the first requirement that financial
disclosure be made public; limits on outside earned income and unofficial office accounts; and
further restrictions on the acceptance of gifts, the use of the franking privilege, and limits on
foreign travel. Pursuant to H.Res. 287, the Committee on Standards assumed jurisdiction over
these additional areas and was authorized to maintain the public financial disclosure reports filed
by Members, officers, and designated employees. 60 In addition, the House established a Select
Committee on Ethics, chaired by Representative L. Richardson Preyer, to assist the Committee on
Standards with the implementation of the new rules.61
Additional Authorities
On July 14, 1977, the House agreed to H.Res. 658 and established the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. 62 The resolution also authorized the Committee on Standards to
“investigate an unauthorized disclosure of intelligence or intelligence-related information by a
Member, officer, or employee of the House in violation of paragraph (c) and report to the House
concerning any allegation which it finds to be substantiated.”63
55
“Lobbying Practices and Political Campaign Contributions Affecting the House of Representatives,” Congressional
Record, vol. 116, part 17 (July 8, 1970), pp. 23136-23141.
56
“Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 121, part 1 (January 14, 1975), p. 20.
57
“Establishing a Select Committee on Ethics,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 6, (March 9, 1977), pp. 68116817.
58
“Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, January 4, 1977, p. 53. The committee continued to retain
substantive jurisdiction over financial disclosure pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-521, 92
Stat. 1824, October 26, 1978).
59
“Providing for Consideration of House Resolution 287, to Amend the Rules of the House of Representatives,”
Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 5 (March 2, 1977), pp. 5885-5953.
60
The Clerk of the House maintains the public repository for House financial disclosure reports pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
app.§101 et seq. For more information on financial disclosure statements, see U.S. Congress, Clerk of the House of
Representatives, “Financial Disclosure Reports,” http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial.html.
61
H.Res. 383 (95th Congress). U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Establishing a Select Committee on Ethics,
report to accompany H.Res. 383, 95th Cong., 1st sess., March 8, 1977, H.Rept. 95-61 (Washington: GPO, 1977); and
“Establishing a Select Committee on Ethics,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 6 (March 9, 1977), pp. 6811-6817.
62
“Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives and Establish a Permanent a Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 18 (July 14, 1977), pp. 22932-22949.
63
Ibid., p. 22934.
Congressional Research Service
9
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
In August 1977, the Committee on Standards was designated at the “employing agency” for the
House. 64 Pursuant to P.L. 95-105, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY 1978, the
Committee was authorized to issue regulations governing the acceptance by House Members,
personnel, and employees of gifts, trips, and decorations from foreign governments. 65
In 1978, the Ethics in Government Act began requiring government-wide public financial
disclosure requirements.66 Subsequently, with the adoption of the House rules for the 96th
Congress (1979-1980), the provisions of the House financial disclosure rule were replaced by
those of the Ethics Act and incorporated into House rules. 67 This act delegated to the Committee
on Standards review, interpretation, and compliance responsibilities for the public financial
disclosure reports that henceforth were to be filed with the Clerk of the House.
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 amended the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and included a
variety of ethics and pay reforms for the three branches of government. Enforcement of these
changes further expanded the jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards.68 Changes made
pursuant to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 included enforcement of the act’s ban on honoraria,
limits on outside earned income, and restrictions on the acceptance of gifts. The committee was
also given the responsibility for consideration of any requests for a written waiver of the limits
imposed by the House gift ban rule.69
Procedures
Procedures for the Committee on Standards are set through House Rule XI, clause 3 and are
further specified in the committee’s rules. 70
Since its creation in 1967, several changes have been made to the Committee on Standards’
procedures. Change to the committee’s procedures can be divided into five broad time periods or
categories: changes in the 1970s, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the Ethics Reform Task Force of
1997, 109th Congress changes, and the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics in 2008.
64
P.L. 95-105, 91 Stat. 863, August 17, 1977.
P.L. 91 Stat. 864, August 17, 1977.
66
P.L. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824, October 26, 1978; 5 U.S.C. app. § 101.
67
“Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 1 (January 15, 1979), p. 9.
68
P.L. 101-194, 103 Stat. 1716, November 30, 1989. The Ethics Reform Act, also mandated certain changes in the
committee’s procedures, infra. See U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics on H.R. 3360,
committee print, 101st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1989), pp. 9-11, 16-21; and “Government Ethics Reform Act
of 1989,” Congressional Record, vol. 135, part 21 (November 16, 1989), pp. 29469-29509.
69
U.S. Congress, House Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics, H.R. 3660, to Amend the Rules of the House of
Representatives and the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to Provide for Government-Wide Ethics Reform, and for
Other Purposes, committee print, 101st Cong., 1st sess., November 15, 1989 (Washington: GPO, 1989), pp. 4-5.
70
U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives One Hundred
Eleventh Congress, prepared by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 110-162
(Washington: GPO, 2009), § 806, pp. 567-596; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, Rules, 111th Cong., 1st sess., June 9, 2009 (http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/
111th_Rules_Amended_June_2009.pdf).
65
Congressional Research Service
10
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Changes in the 1970’s
During the first years of the Committee on Standards many adjustments were made to the
procedural operations of the committee. While some of the changes made during the 1970’s have
been repealed or replaced, three changes remain in effect.
1. In the 93rd Congress (1973-1974), the House agreed to H.Res. 988 and amended
the jurisdiction and procedures of nearly all standing committees.71 As part of
those reforms, House Rules were amended to permit a majority vote to approve
Committee on Standard’s reports, recommendations, advisory opinions, and
investigations;72
2. In the 95th Congress (1977-1978), the House included its opening day rules
package a provision permitting a member of the committee to disqualify
himself/herself from participating in an investigation upon submission of an
affidavit of disqualification in writing and under oath;73 and
3. In the 96th Congress (1979-1980), House rules were amended to prohibit
“information or testimony received, or the contents of a complaint or the fact of
its filing” from being “publicly disclosed by any committee or staff member
unless specifically authorized in each instance by a vote of the full committee.”74
Ethics Reform Act of 1989
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194) contained provisions affecting all three branches
of government and mandated changes to the House Committee on Standards.75 Specifically, it
established the Office of Advice and Education in the Committee on Standards. The Office of
Advice and Education’s primarily responsibilities include
(A) Providing information and guidance to Members, officers and employees of the House
regarding any laws, rules, regulations, and other standards of conduct applicable to such
71
U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Committees, Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, report to
accompany H.Res. 988, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., March 19, 1974, H.Rept. 93-916, Part 1 (Washington: GPO, 1974); U.S.
Congress, House Select Committee on Committees, Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, report to accompany
H.Res. 988, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., March 19, 1974, H.Rept. 93-916, Part 2 (Washington: GPO, 1974); and “Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974,” Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 26 (October 8, 1974), pp. 34447-34470.
72
U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Committees, Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, report to
accompany H.Res. 988, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., March 19, 1974, H.Rept. 93-916, Part 2 (Washington: GPO, 1974), p.
176. See also “Committee Reform Amendments of 1974,” Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 26 (October 8,m
1974), pp. 34406-34420; and “Committee Reform Amendments of 1974,” Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 26
(October 8, 1974), pp. 34447-34470. Previously, an affirmative vote of 10 Members of the 12 Member panel were
required for approving committee reports, issuing recommendations or advisory opinions, and initiating investigations.
See footnote 46 for more information.
73
“Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 1 (January 4, 1977), p. 53.
74
“Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 1 (January 15, 1979), p. 8.
75
P.L. 101-194, 103 Stat. 1716, November 30, 1989. For the debate on the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, see
“Government Ethics Reform Act of 1989,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 135, part 21, (November 16,
1989), pp. 29468-29513; “Government Ethics Reform Act of 1989,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 135,
part 21, (November 17, 1989), pp. 29660-29678; and 29681-29707; and “Government Ethics Reform Act,” Senate
debate, Congressional Record, vol. 135, part 21 (November 17, 1979), pp. 29777-29796.
Congressional Research Service
11
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
individuals in their official capacities, and any interpretations and advisory opinions of the
committee.
(B) Submitting to the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee any written
request from any such Member, officer or employee for an interpretation of applicable laws,
rules, regulations, or other standards of conduct, together with any recommendations
thereon.
(C) Recommending to the committee for its consideration formal advisory opinions of
general applicability.
(D) Developing and carrying out, subject to the approval of the chairman, periodic
educational briefings for Members, officers and employees of the House on those laws, rules,
regulations, or other standards of conduct applicable to them.76
The Office of Advice and Education offers training, guidance, and provides recommendations to
Members, officers, and employees of the House on standards of conduct applicable to their
official duties. 77
Many other changes implemented by the 1989 act are still applicable. These include the
following:
•
“bifurcation” (separation) within the committee of its investigative and
adjudicative functions;78
•
a requirement that the committee report to the House on any case it has voted to
investigate and that any “letter of reproval” or other committee administrative
action may be issued only as part of a final report to the House;79
•
a statute of limitation prohibiting the committee from initiating or undertaking an
investigation of alleged violations occurring prior to the third previous Congress
unless they are related to a continuous course of conduct in recent years;80
•
a guarantee that any Member who is the respondent in any Ethics Committee
investigation may be accompanied by one counsel on the House floor during
consideration of his/her case;81 and
76
P.L. 101-194, sec. 803(i), 103 Stat. 1775, November 30, 1989; 2 U.S.C. § 29d.
For more information on the Office of Advice and Education, see U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Standards
and Official Conduct, “About: Committee Advice,” 111th Cong., 2nd sess. (http://ethics.house.gov/About/Default.aspx?
Section=8); and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Summary of Activities, One
Hundred Tenth Congress, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., January 3, 2009, H.Rept. 110-938 (Washington: GPO, 2009).
78
Bifurcation is the separation of administrative and investigative functions of the Committee on Standards. The Ethics
Task Force defined bifurcation as: “... a ‘firewall’ between the Committee functions of investigation and adjudication,
ensuring that Committee members who charge a respondent with a violation do not also participate in a judgment of
whether liability has been established. It also allocates responsibility within the Committee so that the review of
information offered as a complaint is less time-consuming for members of the Committee and is consistent with the
confidentiality imposed on the complaint process. For these reasons, the Task Force encourages Committee members to
protect the integrity of the ‘firewall’ to the greatest degree possible.” See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules,
Report of the Ethics Reform Task Force on H.Res. 168, committee print, 105th Cong., 1st sess., June 17, 1997
(Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 7.
79
P.L. 101-194, sec. 803(e), 103 Stat. 1774, November 30, 1989.
80
P.L. 101-194, sec. 803(g), 103 Stat. 1775, November 30, 1989.
77
Congressional Research Service
12
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
•
a time limit of committee service of no more than three out of any five
consecutive Congresses.82
The act also increased the size of the committee’s membership from 12 to 14.83 That change,
however, was superseded by the 1997 amendments that reduced the size of the committee from
14 to 10 members.84
Ethics Reform Task Force
On February 12, 1997, the House created an Ethics Reform Task Force to “look into any and all
aspects of the ethics process,” including
Who can file a complaint and upon what basis of information, what should be the standards
for initiating an investigation, what evidentiary standard should apply throughout the
process, how has the bifurcation process worked, does it take too long to conduct a review,
should non-House Members play a part in a reformed ethics process, should we enlarge the
pool of Members who might participate in different phases of the process?85
Chaired by Representatives Bob Livingston and Ben Cardin, the 10-member task force was
directed to review the existing House ethics process and to recommend reforms.86 At the same
time that the House approved the establishment of the task force, it also approved a 65-day
moratorium on the filing of new ethics complaints to enable the Task Force to conduct its work
“in a climate free from specific questions of ethical propriety.”87
After seven months of study, the Task Force reported to the House in June 1997 with several
recommendations. These included ensuring that the Committee on Standards operated in a nonpartisan manner; that the committee’s workings be kept confidential unless otherwise voted on by
the committee; that an improved system be created for the filing of information offered as a
complaint; that the committee should create an efficient administrative structure; that due process
for Members, officers, and employees of the House be preserved; that Members play a greater
role in the ethics process; and that matters before the committee be dealt with in a timely
manner.88
(...continued)
81
P.L. 101-194, sec. 803(h), 103 Stat. 1775, November 30, 1989. For information on “Letters of Reproval,” see CRS
Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: An Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus.
82
P.L. 101-194, sec. 803(a), 103 Stat. 1773, November 30, 1989. House Rule X, clause 5. Democratic Caucus Rules
include additional limits on committee service.
83
P.L. 101-194, 103 Stat. 1774, November 30, 1989; 2 U.S.C. § 29d.
84
“Implementing the Recommendations of Bipartisan House Ethics Task Force,” Congressional Record, vol. 143,
September 18, 1997, pp. 19302-19340.
85
Rep. Richard Armey, “Creation of Bipartisan Task Force to Review Ethics Process,” Congressional Record, vol.
143, part 2 (February 12, 1997), p. 2059.
86
“Creation of Bipartisan Task Force to Review Ethics Process,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, part 2 (February 12,
1997), pp. 2058-2059.
87
Rep. Richard Armey, “Creation of Bipartisan Task Force to Review Ethics Process,” Congressional Record, vol.
143, part 2 (February 12, 1997), p. 2059.
88
U.S. Congress, House Ethics Reform Task Force on H.Res. 168, Recommending Revisions to the Rules of the House
and the Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct with Additional Views, committee print, 105th Cong.,
1st sess., June 17, 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 4-5.
Congressional Research Service
13
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
On September 18, 1997, the House debated and agreed to H.Res. 230, a rule to provide for the
consideration of H.Res. 168, the implementation of the Task Force’s recommendations,89 and
proceeded to debate and amend H.Res. 168.90 The major ethics process changes adopted pursuant
to H.Res. 168 included the following:
•
altering the way individuals who are not Members of the House file complaints
with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct by requiring them to have a
Member of the House certify in writing that the information is submitted in good
faith and warrants consideration;91
•
decreasing the size of the committee from 14 members to 10;92
•
establishing a 20-person pool of Members (10 from each party) to supplement the
work of the Ethics Committee as potential appointees to investigative
subcommittees that the committee might establish; 93
•
requiring the chair and ranking minority member of the committee to determine
within 14 calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever comes first, if the
information offered as a complaint meets the committee’s requirements;94
•
allowing an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the committee or
approval of the full House to refer evidence of violations of law disclosed in a
committee investigation to the appropriate state or federal law enforcement
authorities;95
•
providing for a nonpartisan, professional committee staff;96
•
allowing the ranking minority member on the committee to place matters on the
committee’s agenda;97 and
89
“Providing for Consideration of H.Res. 168, Implementing the Recommendations of Bipartisan House Ethics Reform
Task Force,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, part 13 (September 18, 1997), pp. 19302-19310.
90
“Implementing the Recommendations of Bipartisan House Ethics Task Force,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, part
13 (September 18, 1997), pp. 19310-19340.
91
H.Res. 168, sec. 9 (105th Congress), agreed to September 17, 1997. This procedure superseded a process whereby
non-House Members could file complaints with the Committee on Standards only after submitting allegations to at
least three House Members, who had refused in writing to transmit the complaint to the committee.
92
“Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 1 (January 6, 1999), p. 54. The formal change in
membership from 12 to 10 codified the defacto size of the committee in the 105th Congress even though the Ethics
Reform Act of 1989 required each party to nominate seven Members for the committee (P.L. 101-194, sec. 803(b), 103
Stat. 1774, November 30, 1989; 2 U.S.C. § 29d).
93
H.Res. 168, sec. 1(a) (105th Congress), agreed to September 17, 1997. The first pool of 20 Members selected to serve
on investigative committees of the Standards Committee was appointed on November 13, 1997. See The Speaker Pro
Tempore [Rep. Ray La Hood], “List of Republican and Democratic Members Selected to Serve As ‘Pool’ For Purposes
Relating To The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, November 13, 1997,
p. 26569. The House leadership has subsequently appointed a 20-person pool of Members in each Congress.
94
H.Res. 168, sec. 10 (105th Congress), agreed to September 17, 1997. Previously, there was no specific time limit for
this determination.
95
H.Res. 168, sec. 18 (105th Congress), agreed to September 17, 1997. With the exception of a brief period in 1966,
only a vote by the full House previously permitted referrals of possible violations of law to the appropriate authorities.
96
H.Res. 168, sec. 4 (105th Congress), agreed to September 17, 1997.
97
H.Res. 168, sec. 3 and sec. 11 (105th Congress), agreed to September 17, 1997.
Congressional Research Service
14
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
•
decreasing the maximum service on the committee from six years to four years
during any three successive Congresses and required at least four members to be
rotated off the committee at the end of each Congress.98
109th Congress Changes
On January 4, 2005, the House included several provisions in its rules for the 109th Congress
(2005-2006) that affected the Committee on Standards. These included the process for handling
allegations against a House Member, officer, or employee; procedures for instances when the
conduct of one Member, officer, or employee might be referenced in the course of an
investigation against another Member, officer, or employee; the due process for respondents and
witnesses; and the dismissal of complaints.99 Subsequently, on April 27, 2005, the House reversed
earlier 109th Congress changes when it agreed to H.Res. 240 and reinstated “certain provisions of
the rules relating to procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to the form in
which those provisions existed at the close of the 108th Congress.”100
Office of Congressional Ethics
In January 2007, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner jointly
established a Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement in the House of Representatives. 101
Chaired by Representative Michael Capuano, the task force was charged with considering
“whether the House should create an outside enforcement entity, based on examples in state
legislatures and private entities.”102
In December 2007, Chairman Capuano released a report and introduced H.Res. 895 to create an
office of congressional ethics, composed of six board members jointly appointed by House
leaders.103 On March 11, 2008, the House adopted H.Res. 895 and created the Office of
Congressional Ethics (OCE).104 The first OCE board members were appointed in July 2008.105
98
H.Res. 168, sec. 2 (105th Congress), agreed to September 17, 1997. When the House adopted its rules for the 106th
Congress (1999-2001), it changed the committee service rule and also voted to eliminate the rule requiring four
members of the Standards Committee to rotate off the committee every Congress. This action returned the committee’s
service requirement to what it had been after the adoption of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (no more than three
Congresses in any period of five successive Congresses). See “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 145,
part 1 (January 6, 1999), p. 54. House Democratic Caucus Rules further limit service on the Committee on Standards.
99
“Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151(January 4, 2005), pp. H8-H10.
100
H.Res. 240 (109th Congress), agreed to April 27, 2005 with the adoption of H.Res. 241. “Amending the Rules of the
House of Representatives to Reinstate Certain Provision of the Rules Relating to Procedures of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct to the Form in which those Provisions Existed at the Close of the 108th Congress”,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (April 27, 2005), pp. H2616-H2626. See also CRS Report RS22034,
House Ethics Rules Changes in the 109th Congress, by Mildred Amer.
101
U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House of Representatives, “Pelosi Announces Special Task Force on Ethics
Enforcement,” press release, January 31, 2007, http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0057.
102
The other Members of the task force were Representatives Bobby Scott, Marty Meehan, Betty McCollum, Lamar
Smith (ranking member), Dave Camp, Dave Hobson, and Todd Tiahrt. Representative David Price was appointed to
the task force in July 2007 when Representative Meehan resigned from Congress.
103
U.S. Congress, House Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, Report of the Democratic Members of the Special
Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, committee print, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H.Prt. 110-1 (Washington: GPO, 2007), pp.
4-5. Subsequently, on February 27, 2008, ranking member Rep. Lamar Smith and the other Republican Members of the
task force introduced H.Res. 1003 to provide increased accountability and transparency in the Committee on Standards
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Reauthorized by the House as part of the opening day rules package (H.Res. 5) adopted by the
111th Congress on January 6, 2009,106 the OCE held its first public meeting on January 23,
2009.107 In February, the OCE board adopted final rules of procedure and a code of conduct for
board members and staff.108 The rules of procedure and the code of conduct stipulated that
•
board members are to be appointed jointly by the Speaker and the minority
leader;
•
board members serve staggered two-Congress terms and can be removed only by
the Speaker and minority leader acting jointly;
•
reviews by the OCE of allegations against House Members or staff can be
initiated only by a written request to the board by two board members. One
member must have been appointed by the Speaker and one must have been
appointed by the minority leader;109
•
reviews are terminated unless at least three board members vote to advance it;
•
the general public may only file information about allegations with the OCE; 110
•
a specific timetable and two-phased procedure is established for the board to
consider complaints;
•
no cases may be referred to the House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct within 60 days of an election in which the subject of a referral is a
candidate;
•
the board considers only those allegations of misconduct occurring after the OCE
was established on March 11, 2008;
(...continued)
of Official Conduct. On March 3, 2008, Representative Capuano also released proposed amendments to H.Res. 895.
For more information on the proposed amendments, see Rep. Michael E. Capuano, “Amendments to the Proposed
Reforms to the Ethics Process,” Dear Colleague letter, March 3, 2008, http://www.house.gov/capuano/news/2008/
pr121907-letter030308.pdf.
104
“Establishing An Office of Congressional Ethics,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (March 11, 2008),
pp. H1515-H1536.
105
U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House of Representatives, “Pelosi, Boehner Announce Appointments to New Office
of Congressional Ethics,” press release, July 24, 2008, http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0762. The
members are former Representatives David Skaggs (chair), Porter Goss (vice chair), Karan English, and Yvonne
Brathwaite Burke; former House Chief Administrative Officer Jay Eagen; and former professor and chief of staff of the
Federal Election Commission Allison Hayward. The alternates are former Representative and federal judge Abner
Mikva and former Representative Bill Frenzel.
106
H.Res. 5, Sec. 4(d) (111th Congress), agreed to January 6, 2009. See also, “Adopting Rules For the One Hundred
Eleventh Congress,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155 (January 6, 2009), p. H12.
107
U.S. Congress, House, Office of Congressional Ethics, Board Meeting and Public Meeting, 111th Cong., 1st sess.,
http://oce.house.gov/pdf/Hearing_on_January_23,_2009.pdf.
108
U.S. Congress, House, Office of Congressional Ethics, Business Meeting, 111th Cong., 1st sess., http://oce.house.gov/
pdf/Hearing_on_February_27,_2009.pdf; and U.S. Congress, House, Office of Congressional Ethics, Rules, 111th
Cong., 1st sess., http://oce.house.gov/pdf/20090127_rules_as_adopted.pdf.
109
The House of Representatives and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct retain the ultimate authority for
the discipline of House Members and staff.
110
Currently, individuals outside Congress may submit a complaint or allegation to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct by having a Member of the House certify in writing that the information is submitted in good faith
and warrants consideration by the committee.
Congressional Research Service
16
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
•
the board acts in secrecy on all matters and communicates solely with the
Committee on Standards;
•
the Committee on Standards considers recommendations from the board under
time limits;
•
only the Committee on Standards has the final authority to either dismiss a case
or to empanel an investigative subcommittee;
•
no public announcements are required when neither the board nor the Committee
on Standards finds wrongdoing; and
•
the OCE has no subpoena power.111
111
For more information on the OCE, including a full legislative history and a discussion of possible policy options,
see CRS Report R40760, House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures, by Jacob R.
Straus.
Congressional Research Service
17
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Appendix. Membership on the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, 1967-2010
Since its inception in the 90th Congress (1967-1968), the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct has had a total of 267 members.112 Table A-1 provides a list of all Members to have
served on the Committee on Standards, their party affiliation, and their state and district.
Table A-1. Congressional Committee Assignments: House Standards of Official
Conduct Committee
Member
Party
State
District
90th Congress (1967-1968)
Price, C. Melvin
D
IL
24th
Teague, Olin E.
D
TX
6th
Evins, Joseph L.
D
TN
4th
Abbitt, Watkins M.
D
VA
4th
Aspinall, Wayne N.
D
CO
4th
Kelly, Edna F.
D
NY
12th
Halleck, Charles A.
R
IN
2nd
Arends, Leslie C.
R
IL
17th
Betts, Jackson E.
R
OH
8th
Stafford, Robert T.
R
VT
AL a
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st
Williams, Lawrence G.
R
PA
7th
91st Congress (1969-1970)
Price, C. Melvin
D
IL
24th
Teague, Olin E.
D
TX
6th
Abbitt, Watkins M.
D
VA
4th
Aspinall, Wayne N.
D
CO
4th
Hébert, F. Edward
D
LA
1st
Holifield, Chet
D
CA
19th
Arends, Leslie C.
R
IL
17th
Betts, Jackson E.
R
OH
8th
Stafford, Robert T.
R
VT
AL a
112
Because all Members must be reappointed to the committee in subsequent Congress, this total counts Members who
served in more than one Congress multiple times. The number of Members on the committee has fluctuated over time
as the result of Members leaving the committee or being temporarily replaced due to conflict of interest for cases
before the committee.
Congressional Research Service
18
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Member
Party
State
District
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st
Williams, Lawrence G.
R
PA
7th
Hutchinson, Edward
R
MI
4th
Reid, Charlotte T.
R
IL
15th
92nd Congress (1971-1972)
Price, C. Melvin
D
IL
24th
Teague, Olin E.
D
TX
6th
Abbitt, Watkins M.
D
VA
4th
Aspinall, Wayne N.
D
CO
4th
Hébert, F. Edward
D
LA
1st
Holifield, Chet
D
CA
19th
Betts, Jackson E.
R
OH
8th
Stafford, Robert T.
R
VT
AL a
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st
Williams, Lawrence G.
R
PA
7th
Hutchinson, Edward
R
MI
4th
Reid, Charlotte T.
R
IL
15th
King, Carleton J.
R
NY
30th
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
93rd Congress (1973-1974)
Price, C. Melvin
D
IL
23rd
Teague, Olin E.
D
TX
6th
Hébert, F. Edward
D
LA
1st
Holifield, Chet
D
CA
19th
Flynt, John James Jr.
D
GA
6th
Foley, Thomas S.
D
WA
5th
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st
Williams, Lawrence G.
R
PA
7th
Hutchinson, Edward
R
MI
4th
King, Carleton J.
R
NY
29th
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
Hunt, John E.
R
NJ
1st
94th Congress (1975-1976)
Price, C. Melvin
D
IL
23rd
Teague, Olin E.
D
TX
6th
Hébert, F. Edward
D
LA
1st
Congressional Research Service
19
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Member
Party
State
District
Flynt, John James Jr.
D
GA
6th
Foley, Thomas S.
D
WA
5th
Bennett, Charles E.
D
FL
3rd
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st
Hutchinson, Edward
R
MI
4th
Quie, Albert H.
R
MN
1st
Mitchell, Donald J.
R
NY
31st
Cochran, Thad
R
MS
4th
95th Congress (1977-1978)
Flynt, John James Jr.
D
GA
6th
Teague, Olin E.
D
TX
6th
Bennett, Charles E
D
FL
3rd
Hamilton, Lee H.
D
IN
9th
Preyer, L. Richardson
D
NC
6th
Flowers, Walter
D
AL
7th
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st
Quie, Albert H.
R
MN
1st
Cochran, Thad
R
MS
4th
Fenwick, Millicent H.
R
NJ
5th
Caputo, Bruce F.
R
NY
23rd
96th Congress (1979-1980)
Bennett, Charles E.
D
FL
3rd
Hamilton, Lee H.
D
IN
9th
Preyer, L. Richardson
D
NC
6th
Slack, John M. Jr.
D
WV
3rd
Murphy, Morgan F.
D
IL
2nd
Murtha, John P. Jr.
D
PA
12th
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
Hollenbeck, Harold C.
R
NJ
9th
Livingston, Robert L.
R
LA
1st
Thomas, William M.
R
CA
18th
Sensenbrenner, F. James Jr.
R
WI
9th
Cheney, Richard B.
R
WY
AL a
Stokes, Louis
D
OH
21st
Rahall, Nick J. II
D
WV
4th
Congressional Research Service
20
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Member
Party
State
District
97th Congress (1981-1982)
Stokes, Louis
D
OH
21st
Rahall, Nick J. II
D
WV
4th
Alexander, William V. Jr.
D
AR
1st
Wilson, Charles
D
TX
2nd
Holland, Kenneth L.
D
SC
5th
Bailey, Donald A.
D
PA
21st
Spence, Floyd d.
R
SC
2nd
Conable, Barber B. Jr.
R
NY
35th
Myers, John T.
R
IN
7th
Forsythe, Edwin B.
R
NJ
6th
Brown, Hank
R
CO
4th
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
98th Congress (1983-1984)
Stokes, Louis
D
OH
21st
Rahall, Nick J. II
D
WV
4th
Jenkins, Edgar L.
D
GA
9th
Dixon, Julian C.
D
CA
28th
Fazio, Victor H.
D
CA
4th
Coyne, William J.
D
PA
14th
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
Conable, Barber B. Jr.
R
NY
30th
Myers, John T.
R
IN
7th
Forsythe, Edwin B.
R
NJ
13th
Brown, Hank
R
CO
4th
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
Bliley, Thomas J. Jr.
R
VA
3rd
99th Congress (1985-1986)
Dixon, Julian C.
D
CA
28th
Jenkins, Edgar L.
D
GA
9th
Fazio, Victor H.
D
CA
4th
Coyne, William J.
D
PA
14th
Dwyer, Bernard J.
D
NJ
6th
Mollohan, Alan B.
D
WV
1st
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
Myers, John T.
R
IN
7th
Congressional Research Service
21
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Member
Party
State
District
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
Whitehurst, G. William
R
VA
2nd
Pursell, Carl D.
R
MI
2nd
Wortley, George
R
NY
27th
100th Congress (1987-1988)
Dixon, Julian C.
D
CA
28th
Fazio, Victor H.
D
CA
4th
Dwyer, Bernard J.
D
NJ
6th
Mollohan, Alan B.
D
WV
1st
Gaydos, Joseph M.
D
PA
20th
Atkins, Chester G.
D
MA
5th
Spence, Floyd
R
SC
2nd
Myers, John T.
R
IN
7th
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
Pashayan, Charles S. Jr.
R
CA
17th
Petri, Thomas E.
R
WI
6th
Craig, Larry E.
R
ID
1st
Brown, Hank
R
CO
4th
101st Congress (1989-1990)
Dixon, Julian C.
D
CA
29th
Fazio, Victor H.
D
CA
4th
Dwyer, Bernard J.
D
CA
29th
Mollohan, Alan B.
D
NJ
6th
Gaydos, Joseph M.
D
WV
1st
Atkins, Chester G.
D
PA
20th
Stokes, Louis b
D
OH
21st
Myers, John T.
R
IN
7th
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
Pashayan, Charles S. Jr.
R
CA
17th
Petri, Thomas E.
R
WI
6th
Craig, Larry E.
R
ID
1st
Grandy, Fred
R
IA
6th
102nd Congress (1991-1992)
Stokes, Louis
D
OH
21st
Ackerman, Gary L.
D
NY
7th
Darden, George (Buddy)
D
GA
7th
Congressional Research Service
22
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Member
Party
State
District
Cardin, Benjamin L.
D
MD
3rd
Pelosi, Nancy
D
CA
5th
McDermott, Jim
D
WA
7th
Mfume, Kweisi c
D
MD
7th
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
Grandy, Fred
R
IA
6th
Johnson, Nancy L.
R
CT
6th
Bunning, Jim
R
KY
4th
Kyl, Jon L.
R
AZ
4th
Goss, Porter J.
R
FL
13th
Hobson, David L.
R
OH
7th
103rd Congress (1993-1994)
McDermott, Jim
D
WA
7th
Darden, George (Buddy)
D
GA
7th
Cardin, Benjamim L.
D
MD
3rd
Pelosi, Nancy
D
CA
5th
Mfume, Kweisi
D
MD
7th
Borski, Robert A.
D
PA
3rd
Sawyer, Thomas C.
D
OH
14th
Grandy, Fred
R
IA
6th
Johnson, Nancy L.
R
CT
6th
Bunning, Jim
R
KY
4th
Kyl, Jon L.
R
AZ
4th
Goss, Porter J.
R
FL
13th
Hobson, David L.
R
OH
7th
Schiff, Steven
R
NY
1st
104th Congress (1995-1996) d
Johnson, Nancy L.
R
CT
6th
Bunning, Jim
R
KY
4th
Goss, Porter J.
R
FL
13th
Hobson, David L.
R
OH
7th
Schiff, Steven
R
NM
1st
Smith, Lamar S. e
R
TX
21st
McDermott, Jim f
D
WA
7th
Cardin, Benjamin L.
D
MD
3rd
Pelosi, Nancy
D
CA
5th
Borski, Robert A.
D
PA
3rd
Congressional Research Service
23
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Member
Sawyer, Thomas C.
Party
State
District
D
OH
14th
105th Congress (1997-1998)
Hansen, James V.
R
UT
1st
Smith, Lamar S.
R
TX
21st
Hefley, Joel
R
CO
5th
Goodlatte, Robert
R
VA
6th
Knollenberg, Joe
R
MI
11th
Berman, Howard L.
D
CA
26th
Sabo, Martin O.
D
MN
5th
Pastor, Ed
D
AZ
2nd
Fattah, Chaka
D
PA
2nd
Lofgren, Zoe
D
CA
16th
106th Congress (1999-2000)
Smith, Lamar S.
R
TX
21st
Hefley, Joel
R
CO
5th
Knollenberg, Joe
R
MI
11th
Portman, Robert J.
R
OH
2nd
Camp, Dave
R
MI
4th
Berman, Howard L.
D
CA
26th
Sabo, Martin O.
D
MN
5th
Pastor, Ed
D
AZ
2nd
Fattah, Chaka
D
PA
2nd
Lofgren, Zoe
D
CA
16th
107th Congress (2001-2002)
Hefley, Joel
R
CO
5th
Portman, Robert J.
R
OH
2nd
Hastings, Doc
R
WA
4th
Hutchison, Asa
R
AR
3rd
Biggert, Judy
R
IL
13th
Hulshof, Kenny
R
MO
9th
LaTourette, Steve
R
OH
19th
Berman, Howard
D
CA
26th
Sabo, Martin O.
D
MN
5th
Pastor, Ed
D
AZ
2nd
Lofgren, Zoe
D
CA
16th
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs
D
OH
11th
Congressional Research Service
24
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Member
Green, Gene
Party
State
District
D
TX
29th
108th Congress (2003-2004)
Hefley, Joel
R
CO
5th
Hastings, Doc
R
WA
4th
Biggert, Judy
R
IL
13th
Hulshof, Kenny
R
MO
9th
LaTourette, Steve
R
OH
19th
Berman, Howard
D
CA
26th
Mollohan, Alan B.
D
WV
1st
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs
D
OH
11th
Green, Gene
D
TX
29th
Roybal-Allard, Lucille
D
CA
34th
Doyle, Michael F.
D
PA
14th
109th Congress (2005-2006)
Hastings, Doc
R
WA
4th
Biggert, Judy
R
IL
13th
Smith, Lamar S.
R
TX
21st
Hart, Melissa
R
TX
4th
Cole, Tom
R
OK
4th
Mollohan, Alan B.
D
WV
1st
Berman, Howard, L. g
D
CA
28th
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs
D
OH
11th
Green, Gene
D
TX
29th
Roybal-Allard, Lucille
D
CA
34th
Doyle, Michael F.
D
PA
14th
D
OH
11th
Green, Gene
D
TX
29th
Roybal-Allard, Lucille
D
CA
34th
Doyle, Michael F.
D
PA
14th
Delahunt, William D.
D
MA
10th
Scott, Robert C. “Bobby”
D
VA
3rd
Hastings, Doc
R
WA
4th
Bonner, Jo
R
AL
1st
Barrett, J. Gresham
R
SC
3rd
Kline, John
R
MN
2nd
110th Congress (2007-2008)
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs
h
Congressional Research Service
25
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Member
McCaul, Michael T.
Party
State
District
R
TX
10th
111th Congress (2009-2010)
Lofgren, Zoe
D
CA
16th
Chandler, Ben
D
KY
6th
Butterfield, G.K.
D
NC
1st
Castor, Kathy
D
FL
11th
Welch, Peter
D
VT
AL a
Bonner, Jo
R
AL
1st
Conaway, K. Michael
R
TX
11th
Dent, Charles W.
R
PA
15th
Harper, Gregg
R
MS
3rd
McCaul, Michael T.
R
TX
10th
Source: Garrison Nelson, Mary T. Mitchell, and Clark H. Bensen, Committees in the U.S. Congress: 1947-1992
(Washington: CQ Press, 1994); U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, 1993-1994 Official Congressional
Directory: 103rd Congress, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Pub. 103-8 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 471; U.S. Congress,
Joint Committee on Printing, 1995-1996 Official Congressional Directory: 104th Congress, 104th Cong., 1st sess.,
S.Pub. 104-14 (Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 417; U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, 1997-1998 Official
Congressional Directory: 105th Congress, 105th Cong., 1st sess., S.Pub. 105-20 (Washington: GPO, 1998), p. 439; U.S.
Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, 1999-2000 Official Congressional Directory: 106th Congress, 106th Cong., 1st
sess., S.Pub. 106-21 (Washington: GPO, 2000), p. 423; U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, 2001-2002
Official Congressional Directory: 107th Congress, 107th Cong., 1st sess., S.Pub. 107-20 (Washington: GPO, 2002), p.
430; U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, 2003-2004 Official Congressional Directory: 108th Congress, 108th
Cong., 1st sess., S.Pub. 108-18 (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 425; U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing,
2005-2006 Official Congressional Directory: 109th Congress, 109th Cong., 1st sess., S.Pub. 109-12 (Washington: GPO,
2006), p. 434; U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, 2007-2008 Official Congressional Directory: 110th
Congress, 110th Cong., 1st sess., S.Pub. 110-13 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 432; and U.S. Congress, Joint
Committee on Printing, 2009-2010 Official Congressional Directory: 111th Congress, 111th Cong., 1st sess., S.Pub.
111-14 (Washington: GPO, 2010), p. 444.
Notes:
a.
Representative at Large (i.e., the state’s only Member of the House of Representatives).
b.
Appointed to replace Representative Chester G. Atkins.
c.
Appointed to replace Representative Louis Stokes and Representative Gary L. Ackerman.
d.
Most of the Members of the Committee from the 104th Congress were appointed to the Select Committee
on Ethics in the 105th Congress, which existed from January 7, 1997 to January 21, 1997. This select
committee was established to resolve the Statement of Alleged Violations issued in the 104th Congress by
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct against the Speaker of the House. This select committee
expired on January 21, 1997, with the House approving a reprimand against Speaker Newt Gingrich.
e.
Appointed to the Select Committee on Ethics to complete the investigation begun by the Committee of
Standards of Official Conduct.
f.
Representative McDermott was briefly replaced on the committee (July 23 to July 24, 1996) by
Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) during a committee inquiry involving Representative McDermott.
g.
Representative Berman was appointed as ranking Member of the committee after Representative Mollohan
resigned from the committee.
h.
Representative Tubbs-Jones died on August 20, 2008. Representative Gene Green served as acting chair for
the remainder of the 110th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
26
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Author Contact Information
Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress
jstraus@crs.loc.gov, 7-6438
Congressional Research Service
27