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

Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress
March 8, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
98-15
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

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

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). In the 112th Congress (2011-
2012), the committee was renamed the Committee on Ethics.
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 Ethics. 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 Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Creating a Permanent Ethics Committee...................................................................................... 2
Select Committee on Standards and Conduct ......................................................................... 3
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Now Committee on Ethics) ............................ 4
Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................................. 7
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
110th Congress Changes ...................................................................................................... 15
Office of Congressional Ethics ............................................................................................ 16

Tables
Table A-1. Congressional Committee Assignments: House Committee on Ethics ....................... 17

Appendixes
Appendix. Membership on the Committee on Ethics, 1967-2011 ............................................... 17

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 26

Congressional Research Service

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

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 uphold high standards, the Constitution provides each House of
Congress sole authority to establish rules, judge membership requirements, and punish and expel
its Members. 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 Ethics, including the
committee’s jurisdiction and investigative procedure. It does not deal with changes to federal or

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, “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, 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 Baker, “The History of Congressional Ethics,” 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 Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction

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 is, however,
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, 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 Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction

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 Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Now Committee on
Ethics)

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.
24 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.
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 Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction

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 when H.Res. 457
(majority members)31 and H.Res. 458 (minority members)32 were agreed to by the House.
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). For more information on
the Federal Election Campaign Act, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent
Developments and Issues for Congress
, by R. Sam Garrett.
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 Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction

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, and was reported 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 proceeded. 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)
creation of the first House Code of Official Conduct (Rule XLIII);41 and (4) adoption of the first
financial disclosure requirements for Members, officers, and designated employees (Rule
XLIV).42
In the 112th Congress, the House renamed the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to the
Committee on Ethics.43 The committee will be referred to as the Committee on Ethics for the
remainder of this report.

37 “Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, part 5 (March 14, 1968), p. 6503.
38 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.
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. 110-
162 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 962-986.
43 H.Res. 5 (112th Congress), agreed to January 5, 2011; “Rules of the House” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
157 (January 5, 2011), p. H7.
Congressional Research Service
6

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

Jurisdiction
In addition to establishing the Committee on Ethics 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
Congress (1993-1994), summarized four major jurisdictional areas for the Committee on Ethics.
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;44 and (4) issue and publish advisory opinions for the guidance of Members, officers,
and employees.45
The committee was also provided with jurisdiction over the Code of Official Conduct and
financial disclosure.46
In addition to establishing the jurisdiction of the committee, H.Res. 1099, and subsequent
amendments, imposed several constraints on the Committee on Ethics. 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;47
• 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;48

44 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.
45 U.S. Congress, 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. 298.
46 Ibid.
47 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).
48 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7

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

• investigations of alleged violations of any law or rule that was not in effect at the
time of the alleged violation are prohibited;49 and
• members of the committee are not eligible to participate in any committee
proceeding relating to their official conduct.50
H.Res. 1099 also empowered the committee to hold hearings, receive testimony, and issue
subpoenas in the course of conducting an investigation.51
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.52
Changes in Jurisdiction
Since the establishment of the Committee on Ethics 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”53 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.”54 The Committee on Rules reported the

(...continued)
Committee.”
49 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 (P.L. 101-194, sec. 803(g), 103 Stat. 1775, November 30, 1989).
50 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.
51 U.S. Congress, 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. 298.
52 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.
53 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual: 2008 Edition, 110th
Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 8.
54 “Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 116, part. 12 (May 19, 1970), p. 16193.
Congressional Research Service
8

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

resolution on June 11,55 and it was brought up for debate on July 8. Following debate, the
resolution was adopted to give the Committee on Ethics formal jurisdiction over lobbying
activities as well as those involving the raising, reporting, and use of campaign funds.56
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.57 In the 95th Congress (1977-1978), the House transferred jurisdiction
over lobbying to the Committee on the Judiciary58 and jurisdiction over measures relating to
financial disclosure was reassigned to the Committee on Rules.59
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.60 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 Ethics assumed jurisdiction over these
additional areas and was authorized to maintain the public financial disclosure reports filed by
Members, officers, and designated employees.61 In addition, the House established a Select
Committee on Ethics, chaired by Representative L. Richardson Preyer, to assist the Committee on
Ethics with the implementation of the new rules.62
Additional Authorities
On July 14, 1977, the House agreed to H.Res. 658 and established the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.63 The resolution also authorized the Committee on Ethics to

55 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).
56 “Lobbying Practices and Political Campaign Contributions Affecting the House of Representatives,” Congressional
Record
, vol. 116, part 17 (July 8, 1970), pp. 23136-23141.
57 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 121, part 1 (January 14, 1975), p. 20.
58 “Establishing a Select Committee on Ethics,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 6, (March 9, 1977), pp. 6811-
6817.
59 “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).
60 “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.
61 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.
62 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.
63 “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.
Congressional Research Service
9

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

“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.”64
In August 1977, the Committee on Ethics was designated at the “employing agency” for the
House.65 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.66
In 1978, the Ethics in Government Act began requiring government-wide public financial
disclosure requirements.67 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.68 This act delegated to the Committee
on Ethics 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 Ethics.69 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.70
Procedures
Procedures for the Committee on Ethics are set through House Rule XI, clause 3 and are further
specified in the committee’s rules.71
Since its creation in 1967, several changes have been made to the Committee on Ethics’
procedures. Change to the committee’s procedures can be divided into six broad time periods or

64 Ibid., p. 22934.
65 P.L. 95-105, 91 Stat. 863, August 17, 1977.
66 P.L. 95-105, 91 Stat. 864, August 17, 1977.
67 P.L. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824, October 26, 1978; 5 U.S.C. app. § 101.
68 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 1 (January 15, 1979), p. 9.
69 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.
70 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.
71 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).
Congressional Research Service
10

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

categories: changes in the 1970s, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the Ethics Reform Task Force of
1997, 109th Congress changes, 110th Congress changes, and the creation of the Office of
Congressional Ethics in 2008.
Changes in the 1970’s
During the first years of the Committee on Ethics 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.72 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;73
2. In the 95th Congress (1977-1978), the House included in 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;74 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.”75
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 Ethics.76 Specifically, it

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 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.
73 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 47 for more information.
74 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 1 (January 4, 1977), p. 53.
75 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 1 (January 15, 1979), p. 8.
76 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 Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction

established the Office of Advice and Education in the Committee on Ethics. 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
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.77
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.78
Many other changes implemented by the 1989 act are still applicable. These include
• “bifurcation” (separation) within the committee of its investigative and
adjudicative functions;79
• 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;80
• 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;81

77 P.L. 101-194, sec. 803(i), 103 Stat. 1775, November 30, 1989; 2 U.S.C. § 29d.
78 For more information on the Office of Advice and Education, see U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Ethics,
“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).
79 Bifurcation is the separation of administrative and investigative functions of the Committee on Ethics. 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.
80 P.L. 101-194, sec. 803(e), 103 Stat. 1774, November 30, 1989.
81 P.L. 101-194, sec. 803(g), 103 Stat. 1775, November 30, 1989.
Congressional Research Service
12

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

• 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;82 and
• a time limit of committee service of no more than three out of any five
consecutive Congresses.83
The act also increased the size of the committee’s membership from 12 to 14.84 That change,
however, was superseded by the 1997 amendments that reduced the size of the committee from
14 to 10 members.85
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?86
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.87 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.”88
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 non-
partisan 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

82 Ibid. For information on “Letters of Reproval,” see CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional Rules of
Conduct: An Historical Overview
, by Jacob R. Straus.
83 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.
84 P.L. 101-194, 103 Stat. 1774, November 30, 1989; 2 U.S.C. § 29d.
85 “Implementing the Recommendations of Bipartisan House Ethics Task Force,” Congressional Record, vol. 143,
September 18, 1997, pp. 19302-19340.
86 Rep. Richard Armey, “Creation of Bipartisan Task Force to Review Ethics Process,” Congressional Record, vol.
143, part 2 (February 12, 1997), p. 2059.
87 “Creation of Bipartisan Task Force to Review Ethics Process,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, part 2 (February 12,
1997), pp. 2058-2059.
88 Rep. Richard Armey, “Creation of Bipartisan Task Force to Review Ethics Process,” Congressional Record, vol.
143, part 2 (February 12, 1997), p. 2059.
Congressional Research Service
13

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

role in the ethics process; and that matters before the committee be dealt with in a timely
manner.89
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,90 and
proceeded to debate and amend H.Res. 168.91 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 Ethics by requiring them to have a Member of the House
certify in writing that the information is submitted in good faith and warrants
consideration;92
• decreasing the size of the committee from 14 members to 10;93
• 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; 94
• 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;95
• 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;96

89 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.
90 “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.
91 “Implementing the Recommendations of Bipartisan House Ethics Task Force,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, part
13 (September 18, 1997), pp. 19310-19340.
92 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.
93 “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).
94 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. For a list of initial
appointments, see 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.
95 H.Res. 168, sec. 10 (105th Congress), agreed to September 17, 1997. Previously, there was no specific time limit for
this determination.
96 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.
Congressional Research Service
14

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

• providing for a nonpartisan, professional committee staff;97
• allowing the ranking minority member on the committee to place matters on the
committee’s agenda;98 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.99
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 Ethics. 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.100 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.”101
110th Congress Changes
On June 5, 2007, the House agreed to H.Res. 451, directing the Committee on Ethics to “respond
to the indictment of, or the filing of charges of criminal conduct in a court of the United States or
any State against, any Member of the House of Representatives by empanelling an investigative
subcommittee to review the allegations not later than 30 days after the date the Member is
indicted or the charges are filed.”102 The resolution was adopted following the grand jury
indictment of a Member of the House in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia. The requirements of H.Res. 451 were continued in the rules packages for both the
111th and the 112th Congresses.103

97 H.Res. 168, sec. 4 (105th Congress), agreed to September 17, 1997.
98 H.Res. 168, sec. 3 and sec. 11 (105th Congress), agreed to September 17, 1997.
99 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.
100 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151(January 4, 2005), pp. H8-H10.
101 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.
102 H.Res. 451 (110th Congress), agreed to June 5, 2007.
103 H.Res. 5 (111th Congress), agreed to January 6, 2009; “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 155
(January 6, 2009), p. H6-H10. H.Res. 5 (112th Congress), agreed to January 5, 2011; “Rules of the House”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 157 (January 5, 2011), p. H7.
Congressional Research Service
15

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

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. 104
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.”105
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.106 On March 11, 2008, the House adopted H.Res. 895 and created the Office of
Congressional Ethics (OCE).107 The first OCE board members were appointed in July 2008.108
Initially, reauthorized by the House as part of the opening day rules package (H.Res. 5) adopted
by the 111th Congress on January 6, 2009,109 OCE held its first public meeting on January 23,
2009.110 Pursuant to H.Res. 895, OCE referred 22 cases to the Committee on Ethics with a
recommendation of further review and 18 cases with a recommendation of dismissal in the 111th
Congress.111

104 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.
105 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.
106 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
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.
107 “Establishing An Office of Congressional Ethics,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (March 11, 2008),
pp. H1515-H1536.
108 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. Board members are appointed at the beginning of each Congress.
109 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. The OCE was again
reauthorized at the beginning of the 112th Congress [“Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
157 (January 5, 2011), p. H7].
110 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. Fore more information on the Office of Congressional
Ethics, see CRS Report R40760, House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures, by Jacob
R. Straus.
111 U.S. Congress, House, Office of Congressional Ethics, Fourth Quarter 2010 Report: October 2010-December 2010,
111th Cong., 2nd sess. (http://oce.house.gov/disclosures/OCE_Fourth_Quarter_2010_Report.pdf), p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
16

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

Appendix. Membership on the Committee on
Ethics, 1967-2011

Since its inception in the 90th Congress (1967-1968), the Committee on Ethics has had a total of
278 members.112 Table A-1 provides a list of all Members to have served on the Committee on
Ethics, their party affiliation, and their state and district.
Table A-1. Congressional Committee Assignments: House Committee on Ethics
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
Kel y, 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
Quillen, James H.
R
TN
1st

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
17

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

Member Party State
District
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
Flynt, John James Jr.
D
GA
6th
Congressional Research Service
18

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

Member Party State
District
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
19

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

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
Hol and, 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
Mol ohan, Alan B.
D
WV
1st
Spence, Floyd D.
R
SC
2nd
Myers, John T.
R
IN
7th
Congressional Research Service
20

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

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
Mol ohan, 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
Mol ohan, 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
21

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

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
22

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

Member Party State
District
Sawyer, Thomas C.
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
23

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

Member Party State
District
Green, Gene
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
Mol ohan, 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
Mol ohan, 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
110th Congress (2007-2008)
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs h 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
Congressional Research Service
24

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

Member Party State
District
McCaul, Michael T.
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
112th Congress (2011-2012)
Bonner, Jo
R
AL
1st
McCaul, Micahel T.
R
TX
10th
Conaway, K. Michael
R
TX
11th
Dent, Charles W.
R
PA
15th
Harper, Gregg
R
MS
3rd
Lofgren, Zoe i D
CA
16th
Linda Sánchez
D
CA
39th
Mazie Hirono
D
HI
2nd
John Yarmuth
D
KY
3rd
Donna Edwards
D
MD
4th
Pedro Pierluisi
D
PR
AL j
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; 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; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ethics, “Committee Members,”
http://ethics.house.gov/About/Default.aspx?Section=5.
Congressional Research Service
25

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

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 (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 after Representative Mol ohan’s resignation.
h. Representative Tubbs-Jones died on August 20, 2008. Representative Gene Green served as acting chair for
the remainder of the 110th Congress.
i.
Representative Lofgren resigned as ranking member on January 26, 2011 [“Resignation as a Member of the
Committee on Ethics,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 157 (January 26, 2011), p. H499].
j.
Resident Commissioner Pierluisi represents the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the House and is the first
Ethics Committee member who represents a territory. For more information on the Resident
Commissioner, see CRS Report RL31856, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, by R. Eric Petersen.

Author Contact Information

Jacob R. Straus

Analyst on the Congress
jstraus@crs.loc.gov, 7-6438



Congressional Research Service
26