House Office of Congressional Ethics:
History, Authority, and Procedures
Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress
January 27, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40760

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Summary
The House Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) was established on March 11, 2008, with the
passage of H.Res. 895. It was reauthorized by the House as part of the rules package (H.Res. 5)
adopted by the 114th Congress on January 6, 2015.
This action followed years of efforts by groups within and outside Congress to create an
independent entity to investigate allegations of misconduct by members, officers, and employees
of Congress. During the 110th Congress (2007-2008), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and
Minority Leader John Boehner created the bipartisan Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement,
chaired by Representative Michael Capuano, to consider whether the House should create an
“outside” ethics-enforcement entity. The task force worked for nearly a year before issuing its
recommendations for the creation of the OCE.
The mandate of the OCE, which has jurisdiction only in the House, is to review information, and
when appropriate, refer findings of fact to the House Committee on Ethics. Only this committee,
pursuant to House rules, has the authority to recommend House discipline of members and staff.
Information of alleged wrongdoing by members, officers, and employees of the House may be
accepted by the OCE from the general public, but only the OCE board can initiate a review.
The OCE is composed of six board members, and at least two alternates, each of whom serves a
four-year term. The Speaker and the minority leader are each responsible for the appointment of
three board members and one alternate. The chair is selected by the Speaker and a co-chair is
selected by the minority leader. Current members of the House, federal employees, and lobbyists
are not eligible to serve on the board.
OCE rules for the conduct of investigations and code of conduct can be found at their website,
http://oce.house.gov.
This report describes the history and rationale behind the creation of the OCE, its operations, and
its relationship with the House Committee on Ethics, and options potentially available for
Congress if further amendments to the House ethics process are desired.
For additional information, please refer to CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional
Rules of Conduct: A Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus; CRS Report RL30650, Senate
Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction, by Jacob R. Straus;
and CRS Report 98-15, House Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and
Jurisdiction, by Jacob R. Straus.





Congressional Research Service

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Previous Legislative Attempts for Outside or Independent Enforcement of Congressional
Rules of Conduct .......................................................................................................................... 2
Congress-Wide Proposals .......................................................................................................... 3
Commission on Ethics in Government ................................................................................ 4
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress .............................................................. 5
House Proposals ........................................................................................................................ 6
Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement...................................................................................... 7
Hearing ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Final Report ............................................................................................................................. 10
H.Res. 895 ............................................................................................................................... 10
Office of Congressional Ethics ...................................................................................................... 11
Structure .................................................................................................................................. 12
Board Membership ............................................................................................................ 12
Oath of Office .................................................................................................................... 13
Staff ................................................................................................................................... 15
Powers ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Investigations .................................................................................................................... 16
Hearings and Evidence ...................................................................................................... 16
Pay Witnesses .................................................................................................................... 16
OCE Rules ......................................................................................................................... 17
Information Disclosure ...................................................................................................... 17
Investigative Procedure ........................................................................................................... 17
Submission of Information ................................................................................................ 18
Preliminary Stage Review ................................................................................................. 18
Second-Phase Review ....................................................................................................... 19
The Committee on Ethics and Its Relationship to the OCE .............................................. 20
Referrals to Other Entities ................................................................................................. 22
Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 23
Funding ............................................................................................................................. 23
Public Information............................................................................................................. 24
Options for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 25
Create a Statutory OCE ........................................................................................................... 25
Reform Committee on Ethics to Include Public Outreach ...................................................... 26
Amend OCE Authority ............................................................................................................ 26
Subpoena Power ................................................................................................................ 27
OCE Follow Up ................................................................................................................. 27
Additional OCE Functions ................................................................................................ 27
Take No Immediate Action ...................................................................................................... 28

Tables
Table 1. Selected Legislative Proposals for a Congress-Wide Independent Ethics Entity .............. 6
Table 2. Selected Legislative Proposals for a House Independent Ethics Entity ............................. 6
Congressional Research Service

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Table 3. Office of Congressional Ethics Board Membership ........................................................ 12
Table 4. Annual Appropriations for the Office of Congressional Ethics ....................................... 23
Table 5. Office of Congressional Ethics Board Action, 2009-2014 ............................................... 25
Table A-1. Initial and Amended Language Creating the Office of Congressional Ethics ............ 29

Appendixes
Appendix. Rules Committee Amendments to H.Res. 895 ............................................................. 29

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 30
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 30

Congressional Research Service

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Introduction
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison commented that “no man is allowed to be a judge in his
own case, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his
integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judge and parties
at the same time.”1 Since the first session of Congress in 1789, the House of Representatives and
the Senate have contemplated how to judge fellow members. Appropriately, investigating and
judging members of Congress continues to be an issue for Congress.
In 1964, the Senate established the Select Committee on Ethics,2 and in 1967, the House created
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,3 which was renamed the Committee on Ethics
in the 112th Congress (2011-2012).4 These two committees formally assumed the duties of
investigating allegations of wrongdoing against members of their respective chambers. In the
House, the Committee on Ethics has had sole responsibility to investigate and recommend the
discipline of members.5 Self-discipline by the Committee on Ethics has, at various times, been
considered problematic, as members are dependent on one another to do their jobs, bring
individual perspectives on chamber rules to investigations, and are judged by the public at the
same time they are judging congressional colleagues.6 This creates a difficult investigative
environment and often leads to closed-door investigations and media allegations of improper
enforcement of chamber rules.7
Historically, Congress has used its ethics power neither arbitrarily nor frequently. Congress has,
however, “periodically tightened its ethics codes and procedures for dealing with misconduct.”8

1 James Madison, “Federalist No. 10, The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic
Faction and Insurrection,” The Federalist Papers, at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html.
2 Sen. John Cooper et al., “Proposed Amendment of Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate Relative to the
Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and Administration,” debate in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 10, part
13 (July 24, 1964) , pp. 16929-16940. For more information on the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, see CRS Report
RL30650, Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction, by Jacob R. Straus.
3 Rep. William Colmer et al., “Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,” debate in the House, Congressional
Record, vol. 113, part. 7 (April 13, 1967), pp. 9426-9448. See also U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual, 110th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 4-8; and CRS Report 98-
15, House Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction, by Jacob R. Straus.
4 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.
5 This report does not discuss the ethics process in the Senate, but focuses on the creation of an independent
investigatory entity in the House.
6 Dennis F. Thompson, Overcoming the Conflict of Interest in Congressional Ethics, Woodrow Wilson International
Center panel on “Congressional Ethics Enforcement,” at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/ethics-
Thompson%20paper.pdf, January 16, 2007, pp. 2-3.
7 Dennis Thompson, “Both Judge and Party, Why Congressional Ethics Committees are Unethical,” The Brookings
Review, vol. 13, no. 4 (Fall 1995), pp. 44-48. See also, Jack Anderson, “The Embarrassment of Clean Government,”
June 8, 1975, p. C7; Anthony Marro, “Congressional Ethics and the Need for Basic Reform,” The New York Times,
January 30, 1977, p. E3; George Lardner, Jr., “Charges of Favoritism, Tests of Credibility at House Ethics Panel,”
December 15, 1987, p. A21; Ralph Lotkin, “Improving the Ethics Process,” Legal Times, February 3, 1997, p. S.36;
Eliza Newlin Carney, “Uneasy Umpires,” National Journal, May 18, 1996, pp. 1099-1103; Gary Ruskin, “It’s Time to
Reform Hill Ethics Reform,” Roll Call, May 7, 2000, p. 50; Norman Ornstein, “The Senate Is Unable to Police Itself
Adequately,” Roll Call, March 8, 2006, pp. 6, 8; Fred Wertheimer and Meredith McGehee, “Drain the Swamp Before
More End Up Like Ney,” Roll Call, March 1, 2007, p. 4; and Editorial, “When Congress Judges Itself, Ethics Fall by
the Wayside,” USA Today, February 28, 2008, p. 10A.
8 Don Wolfensberger, Punishing Disorderly Behavior in Congress: The First Century, Woodrow Wilson International
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

In addition to amending internal congressional ethics codes and procedures, Congress has
considered numerous legislative proposals since 1951 to create an independent ethics advisory
body that would replace or assist the Committee on Ethics with investigations or enforcement.
In the 110th Congress (2007-2008), the House created the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE)
to review complaints, and when appropriate, refer findings of fact to the Committee on Ethics.
The OCE is the first independent, outside body charged by Congress to investigate complaints
against members and refer valid complaints to the Committee on Ethics.
The OCE is intended to perform an important public service for the House and the public by
assuring the integrity of the chamber.9 It provides a way for groups and individuals to provide
information about alleged misconduct by members, officers, and employees of the House to an
investigative body. The office is designed to “supplement but not supplant” the role of the House
Committee on Ethics.10
The OCE formally opened on January 23, 2009, after adopting rules for conducting investigations
and a code of conduct for its board members and staff.11 It has jurisdiction only over current
members, officers, and employees of the House. This report focuses only on the House of
Representatives and the House ethics process.
Previous Legislative Attempts for Outside or
Independent Enforcement of Congressional Rules
of Conduct
Since the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the House Committee on
Ethics, members of both committees have sometimes been perceived as reluctant to investigate
and discipline colleagues.12 Seeking to be fair and not to pre-judge or prejudice the consideration
of an allegation, the committees operate with little publicity. As a result they have often been

(...continued)
Center panel on “Congressional Ethics Enforcement,” at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/ethics-essay-
drw.pdf, January 16, 2007, p. 9.
9 Statement of Office of Congressional Ethics Chair David Skaggs, in U.S. Congress, House, Office of Congressional
Ethics, Board Meeting and Public Meeting, 111th Cong., 1st sess., January 23, 2009, p. 5, at http://oce.house.gov/pdf/
Hearing_on_January_23_2009.pdf.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid. The rules for the Office of Congressional Ethics were amended on February 27, 2009. See U.S. Congress,
House, Office of Congressional Ethics, Business Meeting, 111th Cong., 1st sess., February 27, 2009, at
http://oce.house.gov/pdf/Hearing_on_February_27_2009.pdf.
12 Dennis F. Thompson, Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption (Washington: The Brookings
Institution, 1995), p. 135. Both ethics committees have throughout their existence been criticized as “watchdogs
without teeth.” See, for example, Robert Sherrill, “We Can’t Depend on Congress to Keep Congress Honest,” The New
York Times Magazine, July 19, 1970, pp. 5-7, 13-14; Jerry Landauer, “Senate Ethics: Hear No Evil, See No Evil,” The
Washington Star, September 19, 1976, p. E3; Editorial, “Got Ethics?” Roll Call, June 25, 2001, p. 4; Helen Dewar,
“Ethics: Can the Senate Police Its Own?” The Washington Post, February 5, 2002, p. A2; Norman Ornstein, “The
Senate Is Unable to Police Itself,” Roll Call, March 8, 2006, p. 6; Editorial, “Weak Reforms,” Roll Call, March 20,
2006, p. 4; and Wilson Abney, “Congressional Ethics: An Evolve or Die Proposition” Roll Call, September 17, 2007,
p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

criticized by the media for “failure to properly implement and enforce the internal rules of their
respective house of Congress.”13 Until 2008, these perceptions led to unsuccessful calls for
investigative and enforcement mechanisms to supplement or replace the ethics committees.
Over the years, proposals have been offered to create an office of public integrity, an independent
ethics commission, and a public review board or office within the legislative branch, composed of
former Members of Congress, retired judges, private citizens, or a combination of these.14 For
some, having a panel of senior statesmen help investigate allegations of wrongdoing by Members
of Congress is viewed as a way to strengthen Congress.15 Dennis Thompson, a Harvard professor
of public policy and congressional scholar, has long advocated countering the institutional
conflict of interest inherent in Members judging Members with an independent body such as an
ethics commission. Thompson sees such an outside body as
likely to reach more objective and independent judgments. It could more credibly protect
members’ rights and enforce institutional obligations without regard to political or personal
loyalties. It would provide more effective accountability and help restore the confidence of
the public. And—an advantage that should appeal to Congress—it would reduce the time
members would have to spend on the chores of ethics regulation.16
Beginning in 1951, even before the ethics committees were created, there were legislative
proposals to create an independent entity to investigate complaints in both the House and the
Senate or within one house. None of these were enacted. Only the legislative proposals that
prompted hearings are discussed below. Proposals receiving no committee action are listed in
Table 1 and Table 2.
Congress-Wide Proposals
Between 1951 and 1996, several proposals were introduced in both the House and Senate to
create a bicameral independent ethics panel. In 1951, Senate hearings were held on a proposal to
create a Commission on Ethics in Government. In 1993, 42 years later, the Joint Committee on

13 Dennis Thompson, “Both Judge and Party, Why Congressional Ethics Committees are Unethical,” The Brookings
Review, vol. 13, no. 4 (Fall 1995), pp. 44-48. See also footnote 7.
14 For a selected list of legislative proposals see Table 1 and Table 2. See also Dennis Thompson, “Both Judge and
Party, Why Congressional Ethics Committees are Unethical,” The Brookings Review, vol. 13, no. 4 (Fall 1995), pp. 44-
48; John Gregg, “Independent Board to Police Members?” Roll Call, August 21, 1988, pp. 3, 18; Glenn Simpson,
“Non-Senators Proposed to Be Ethics Panelists,” Roll Call, October 8, 1991, pp. 1, 27; Norman Ornstein, “Put
Congressmen Emeriti on Ethics Panels,” Wall Street Journal, May 28, 1991, p. A22; Juliet Eilperin, “Debate Joined
Over Outside Ethics Panel for House,” Roll Call, February 10, 1997, p. 10; Norman Ornstein, “Use Former Members,
Staff to Filter Ethics Complaints,” Roll Call, February 4, 2004, p. 6; and Editorial, “Locking Up the Ghost of Congress
Past,” The New York Times, March 3, 2007, p. A26.
15 Sen. William Roth, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 126 (February 6, 1980), pp. 2099-2100.
Senator Roth was discussing S.J.Res. 144, his proposal to establish an Independent Commission on Ethics to conduct
investigations of allegations of improper conduct by members of Congress connected with the so-called ABSCAM
scandal.
16 Dennis Thompson, “Both Judge and Party, Why Congressional Ethics are Unethical,” The Brookings Review, vol.
13, no. 4 (Fall 1995), p. 45. See also, Dennis F. Thompson, Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional
Corruption (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1995); Dennis F. Thompson, Political Ethics and Public Office
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); and Dennis F. Thompson, Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in
Government, Business, and Healthcare (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Congressional Research Service
3

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

the Organization of Congress held hearings on the congressional ethics process. Table 1 also lists
legislation introduced to create a Congress-wide independent ethics entity.
Commission on Ethics in Government
In the 82nd Congress (1951-1952), Senator J. William Fulbright introduced S.Con.Res. 21, to
create a congressional commission to “strengthen the faith and confidence of the American
people in their Government by assisting in the establishment of higher moral standards in the
official conduct of the executive and legislative branches of the Government.”17 The resolution
was referred to the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, where a special
subcommittee was established to examine the resolution. Chaired by Senator Paul Douglas, the
Special Subcommittee on the Establishment of a Commission on Ethics in Government held a
series of hearings in June and July of 1951. In his introductory remarks, Senator Douglas
summarized the importance of ethical standards and why the hearings would focus on more than
just Senator Fulbright’s concurrent resolution.
I think the time has come for positive proposals to deal with the ethical problems of
government. This should include not merely the executive agencies, but the Congress
itself—because if we investigate others, we should be willing to submit ourselves to
investigation—and all private citizens. We all have a great stake in lifting the standards of
our governmental performance.18
Following the hearings, the subcommittee endorsed the passage of S.Con.Res. 21 and the creation
of a commission on ethics in government. The subcommittee recommended that
A Commission on Ethics in Government should be established by joint resolution of
Congress. The Commission’s function should be twofold, the first to investigate and report
to the President and to the Congress on the moral standards of official conduct of officers
and employees of the United States; the effect thereon of the moral standards in business and
political activity of persons and groups doing business with the Government or seeking to
influence public policy and administration; and the moral standards generally prevailing in
society which condition the conduct of public affairs or which affect the strength and unity
of the Nation.
... The second function of the Commission should be to recommend measures to improve
and maintain at a high level moral standards of official conduct in the Federal Government
and of all persons who participate in or are responsible for the conduct of public affairs. It
should be noted that the Commission would not be concerned with the morals of
individuals—governmental personnel or private citizens—except as they are involved in the
conduct of public affairs.19

17 Sen. J. William Fulbright, “Commission on Ethics in Government,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record,
vol. 97, part 3 (March 28, 1951), p. 2938.
18 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee to Study Senate Concurrent
Resolution 21, Establishment of a Commission on Ethics in Government, hearings , 82nd Cong., 1st sess., June 19, 1951
(Washington: GPO, 1951), p. 2.
19 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Special Subcommittee on the Establishment of a
Commission on Ethics in Government, Ethical Standards in Government: Proposals for Improvement of Ethical
Standards in the Federal Government Including Establishment of a Commission on Ethics in Government, committee
print, 82nd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1951), pp. 1-2.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

In addition to recommending the creation of a commission, the subcommittee also recommended
amendments to the Administrative Procedure Act;20 mandatory disclosure of income, assets, and
certain transactions by members of Congress and certain federal officials; a thorough study of
proposed changes to criminal law governing conflict of interest and bribery laws; creation of a
citizens’ organization to work for better government on the national level; and 12 measures
related to ethics issues that merited additional study and consideration.21 S.Con.Res. 21 was not
debated further in either the full committee or on the Senate floor.
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress
In 1993, the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress held hearings on the congressional
ethics process22 that included former and incumbent Members of Congress, as well as academic
scholars. Their testimonies dealt with the advantages and disadvantages of independent ethics
entities and how an outside body might assist the ethics committees in the enforcement of
congressional rules of conduct. The joint committee’s final report summarized the differing
opinions of witnesses on the role of an independent entity and its ramifications on Congress:
While no witnesses advocated giving the entire responsibility to a group of outsiders, some
wanted non-members to be able to investigate charges and recommend punishment.
Representative Robert Andrews, when testifying in favor of an external ethics commission,
said, “Our system purports to conduct review of ethics by our peers, but I think we misdefine
what it means to be a peer. Ultimately, our peers are not fellow Representatives or Senators,
ultimately our peers are ordinary citizens.” Conversely, other witnesses wanted ethics
proceedings to be conducted only by members. As former Senator Warren Rudman testified,
“I believe that the Constitution, when it says that we ought to be the judge of our own
members, means precisely what it says.” A former Chairman of the Standards of Official
Conduct Committee, Representative Louis Stokes was “troubled by calls for further
procedural reforms, which are based on the notion that the Ethics Committee has not done its
job or has not done it properly.”23
Subsequently, the House members of the committee recommended that “the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct should be authorized to use, on a discretionary basis, a panel of
non-members in ethics cases.”24 No further action was taken on any of the ethics proposals
discussed by the joint committee.25

20 5 U.S.C. §§511-599.
21 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Special Subcommittee on the Establishment of a
Commission on Ethics in Government, Ethical Standards in Government: Proposals for Improvement of Ethical
Standards in the Federal Government Including Establishment of a Commission on Ethics in Government, committee
print, 82nd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1951), pp. 2-4.
22 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Ethics Process: Testimony of Former Senator
Abraham A. Ribicoff and a Panel of Academic Experts, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., February 16, 1993, S.Hrg. 103-13
(Washington: GPO, 1993); U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Ethics Process:
Testimony of Hon. Howell Heflin; Hon. Trent Lott; Hon. Henry J. Hyde; Hon. Curt Weldon; and Hon. Robert E.
Andrews, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., February 23, 1993, S.Hrg. 103-37 (Washington: GPO, 1993); and U.S. Congress, Joint
Committee on the Organization of Congress, Ethics Process: Testimony of Hon. Louis Stokes, Hon. James Hansen, and
a Panel of Academic Experts, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., February 25, 1993, S.Hrg. 103-14 (Washington: GPO, 1993).
23 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the Congress. Final Report of the
Senate Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 103-215, vol. 1
(Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 21.
24 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the Congress. Final Report of the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Table 1. Selected Legislative Proposals for a Congress-Wide
Independent Ethics Entity
Congress Bill
Number
Date
Introduced Sponsor
96th (1979-1980)
S.J.Res. 144
February 6, 1980
Wil iam Roth (R-DE)
109th (2005-2006)
S.Con.Res. 82
February 28, 2006
John Kerry (D-MA)

H.R. 4799
February 16, 2006
Christopher Shays (R-CT)

H.R. 5677
June 22, 2006
Christopher Shays (R-CT)

S. 2259
February 8, 2006
Barack Obama (D-IL)
Source: Library of Congress, (LIS) Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress, at http://www.congress.gov.
House Proposals
Prior to the passage of H.Res. 895 in the 110th Congress (2007-2008), the House considered
numerous proposals to create an independent ethics commission. These proposals ranged in scope
and included proposals to abolish the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, authorize an
independent entity for all ethics issues, and create an independent entity to work with the
committee. Prior to H.Res. 895, none of the proposals received further consideration after being
referred to committee. Table 2 lists proposals that were offered between 1988 and 2007 to create
an independent ethics entity in the House.
Table 2. Selected Legislative Proposals for a House Independent Ethics Entity
Congress Bill
Number Date
Introduced Sponsor
100th (1987-1988)
H.Res. 526
August 11, 1988
Joseph DioGuardi (R-NY)
102nd (1991-1992)
H.Res. 465
May 21, 1992
Curt Weldon (R-PA)
103rd (1993-1994)
H.Res. 43
January 25, 1993
Curt Weldon (R-PA)
104th (1995-1996)
H.Res. 95
February 23, 1995
Curt Weldon (R-PA)

H.R. 2797
December 15, 1995
Harold Volkmer (D-MO)
105th (1997-1998)
H.Res. 41
February 5, 1997
Curt Weldon (R-PA)

H.Res. 61
February 13, 1997
Lee Hamilton (D-IN)

H.R. 957
March 5, 1997
Christopher Shays (R-CT)
109th (2005-2006)
H.R. 2412
May 17, 2005
Marty Meehan (D-MA)

H.R. 4920
March 9, 2006
Michael Castle (R-DE)

H.R. 4948
March 14, 2006
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)

(...continued)
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. 12-13.
25 For more information on the hearings and background of ethics issues in Congress, see U.S. Congress, Joint
Committee on the Organization of Congress, Background Materials: Supplemental Information Provided to Members
of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, committee print, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Prt. 103-55
(Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 115-165.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Congress Bill
Number Date
Introduced Sponsor
110th (2007-2008)
H.Res. 895
December 19, 2007
Michael Capuano (D-MA)

H.Res. 1018
March 4, 2008
Baron Hill (D-IN)

H.R. 97
January 1, 2007
Michael Castle (R-DE)

H.R. 1136
February 16, 2007
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)

H.R. 1754
March 29, 2007
Baron Hill (D-IN)

H.R. 2544
May 24, 2007
Joe Sestak (D-PA)

H.R. 2822
June 21, 2007
Joe Sestak (D-PA)

H.R. 4239
November 15, 2007
Christopher Murphy (D-CT)
Source: Library of Congress, (LIS) Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress, at http://www.congress.gov.
While none of the legislative proposals listed in Table 2 moved beyond introduction, in 2007, the
Speaker of the House and the minority leader restarted the conversation about an independent
ethics entity by creating a Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement. The result of the task
force’s work was the introduction of H.Res. 895 (110th Congress) and the creation of the Office of
Congressional Ethics (OCE) to collect information from the public; investigate Members,
officers, and staff of the House of Representatives; and provide that information to the House
Committee on Ethics.
Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement
On January 31, 2007, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner
announced the creation of the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement in the House of
Representatives. 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.”26
During the next eight months, the task force met 29 times in executive session to discuss the
investigative process and to hear from current and former Members of Congress, academic
experts, and citizen advocacy groups.27 The executive sessions both preceded and followed a
public hearing in April 2007.
Establishment of the task force was part of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s emphasis on ethics reform in
the 110th Congress and followed several congressional scandals in the previous Congresses.28 In
January 2006, congressional Democrats from around the country joined in a Washington, DC,

26 U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House, “Pelosi Announces Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement,” press release,
January 31, 2007. The other members of the task force were Representative Bobby Scott, Representative Marty
Meehan, Representative Betty McCollum, Representative Lamar Smith (ranking member), Representative Dave Camp,
Representative Dave Hobson, and Representative Todd Tiahrt. Representative David Price was appointed to the task
force in July 2007 when Representative Meehan resigned from Congress.
27 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. (Hereinafter, Task Force Democratic Members Report.)
28 U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House, “Pelosi: Democrats’ First Order of Business in the New Congress Will Be
Ethics Reform,” press release, November 27, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

press conference to pledge “honest leadership and open government.”29 At the same time, Public
Citizen, the watchdog group, issued a list of six benchmarks for reform which included the
establishment of an independent congressional Office of Public Integrity to monitor allegations of
ethics violations and refer them to the congressional ethics committees.30 Public opinion also
appeared to favor reform, as a January 2006 CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll found that “corruption
in government” was ranked as an “extremely important” or “very important” issue by 81% of
respondents.31
Hearing
On April 19, 2007, the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement held a public hearing to discuss
“whether the House should create an independent entity relative to the ethics process, and if so,
what form, makeup, authority, et cetera, that entity should be.”32 In his opening remarks, Ranking
Member Lamar Smith summarized both the positive and negative aspects of creating an
independent ethics entity in the House.
Today we examine proposals to create an independent ethics commission. I know there are
some independent legislative ethics commissions operating ... that would have been
considered a success. But I also know there are unique items at work in Washington, DC,
and issues of Federal law that do not apply elsewhere. I know some see the need for a
commission that operates independently of the duly elected membership of the House of
Representatives. Yet I also know there are those who are concerned that the ethics
enforcement entity not be so independent from duly elected members that it upsets the
checks and balances. That system must exist within our Constitution which requires
separation of powers among the executive, judicial and legislative branches.33
The task force heard from four witnesses, three in favor of an independent ethics entity and one
who was opposed. Testifying in favor of an independent entity were Tom Fitton, president of
Judicial Watch; Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center; and Fred
Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21. They each spoke of their belief that creating an
independent, impartial, and investigative entity would end the conflict of interest that exists when
members are asked to judge their colleagues. For example, Tom Fitton testified that the “House
ethics process is broken and in need of reform,” and that “[a]s this Task Force considers ways for
the House to honor its constitutional obligation to uphold its own rules of conduct, I respectfully
suggest you strongly consider an independent entity, answerable to House members, which can
undertake investigations and make independent findings and recommendations for action to the
appropriate House body.”34

29 U.S. Congress, Senate, Office of Majority Leader Harry Reid, “Democrats Pledge to Provide Honest Leadership,
Open Government,” press release, January 18, 2006, at http://democrats.senate.gov/2006/01/18/democrats-pledge-to-
provide-honest-leadership-open-government/#.VMe76nsb07E.
30 Public Citizen, “Six Benchmarks for Lobbying Reform,” Congress Watch, January 26, 2006, at
http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=14877.
31 “CNN/USAToday/Galllup Poll,” USA Today, January 6-8, 2006, at http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-01-
09-poll.htm.
32 U.S. Congress, House, Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, Public Hearing on Ethics Process, 110th Cong.,
1st sess., April 19, 2007, p. 2. (Hereinafter, Task Force Public Hearing.)
33 Ibid., p. 7.
34 Testimony of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, in Task Force Public Hearing, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Testifying against an independent ethics entity was Don Wolfensberger, director of the Congress
Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Mr. Wolfensberger stated,
The bottom line is that the power of Congress to punish its members is rooted in the need to
protect the institution from actions and behavior that would bring the body into disrepute or
disarray. It is not a power that can be properly exercised, even in part, by non-members for
the very reason that only members have the institutional sense, instincts, and legitimacy to
exercise it correctly and effectively for the good of the House. Others would tend to confine
themselves to the question of justice for the individual member accused.35
Mr. Wolfensberger further suggested that the House ethics process could be strengthened if
• the chair and ranking member kept the full committee membership apprised of
the status of all complaints filed with the committee;
• the full committee determined when an investigative subcommittee should be
created;
• an investigative subcommittee was not allowed to enter into an agreement with a
respondent, but instead recommended a proposed settlement that the full
committee could finalize, modify, or reject;
• when an investigative subcommittee report did not adopt a statement of alleged
violation, it should be sent to the House (and public) and not to the full
committee; and
• the committee’s authority to issue a letter of reproval or other appropriate action
be available, as a matter of privilege, for possible House action.36
Following the hearing, Representative Capuano received a letter signed by 27 House Democrats
asking the task force to “address the structural flaws that underlie the current enforcement
process.”
Our current ethics process is also out of step with how these matters are handled in almost
half the state legislatures. The experience in the states has proven that effective safeguards
can be put in place to deter potential abuse of the ethics process without undermining its
integrity and free of any constitutional concerns. Under such a revamped ethics process, final
determination of any alleged ethical misconduct would remain the responsibility of the
members, as is constitutionally required. We believe that building greater independence into
the ethics enforcement process, especially in the investigatory phase, is an appropriate
response to the problems of the past and will be a safeguard against any recurrences.37

35 Testimony of Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Congress Project Director Don Wolfensbeger, in
Task Force Public Hearing.
36 Ibid., pp. 3-4.
37 Letter from Representative Zack Space, Representative Baron Hill, Representative Nick Lampson, Representative
Bruce Braley, Representative Michael Arcuri, Representative David Loebsack, Representative Jason Altmire,
Representative Ed Perlmutter, Representative Nancy Boyda, Representative Timothy Walz, Representative Tim
Mahoney, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Representative Christopher Murphy, Representative Kristen Gillibrand,
Representative Paul Hodes, Representative Joe Courtney, Representative Jerry McNerney, Representative Brad
Ellsworth, Representative Steve Kagen, Representative Carol Shea-Porter, Representative Ron Klein, Representative
Betty Sutton, Representative John Yarmuth, Representative Patrick Murphy, Representative Phil Hare, Representative
Joe Sestak, and Representative John Hall, to Chairman Michael Capuano, Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement,
April 23, 2007. A copy of the letter is available from the author.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Final Report
In December 2007, the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement issued its final report. Only the
Democratic members of the task force, however, penned their names to the report. The
Republican members chose to withhold comment.38 The report recommended the creation of an
Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) as an independent office within the House to “review
information on allegations of misconduct by members, officers, and employees of the House and
make recommendations to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the Committee’s
official consideration and action.”39
The task force proposed a six-member entity to investigate possible violations of House rules.
The report stated that “[t]he new Office of Congressional Ethics will act as an origination point
for independent review of possible violations of standards of conduct, but will not prevent the
Standards Committee from accepting complaints filed by members.”40 In a press release
accompanying the report, Representative Capuano reported that the task force was recommending
that
• a nonpartisan professional staff be hired by the panel, and current House
members and lobbyists not be permitted to serve on the panel;
• the OCE conduct preliminary reviews, then refer all matters subject to a second-
phase review to the Committee on Standards for disposition; if no merit is found,
the board may recommend dismissal;
• the OCE be given up to 30 calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever was
greater, to conduct a preliminary review, and 45 calendar days or 5 legislative
days to review a matter in the second phase before referral to the Committee on
Standards;
• the Committee on Standards be given up to 45 calendar or 5 legislative days,
whichever was greater, to consider the matter as allowed pursuant to current
Committee on Standards Rules 16b-16e; and
• the Committee on Standards be required to make a public statement, or finding,
on referrals from the OCE by the end of the 45-calendar-day or 5-legislative-day
period.41
H.Res. 895
In coordination with the release of the task force members’ report recommending the creation of
an independent ethics entity, Representative Capuano introduced H.Res. 895 on December 19,
2007. In preparation for a Committee on Rules hearing on H.Res. 895, Representative Capuano
sent a Dear Colleague letter42 in March 2008 and wrote an opinion article in Roll Call43

38 Task Force Democratic Members Report, p. III.
39 Ibid., pp. 1-2.
40 Ibid., p. 6.
41 Rep. Michael Capuano, “Congressman Mike Capuano Releases Report of the Special Task Force on Ethics
Enforcement,” press release, December 19, 2007. See also, Dear Colleague Letter from Representative Michael
Capuano, chair, Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, December 19, 2007.
42 Dear Colleague Letter from Representative Michael Capuano, chair, Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

advocating adoption of the task force’s recommendations for an independent ethics entity. On
March 10, the Committee on Rules reported H.Res. 1031, which provided for adoption of H.Res.
895, as amended, with a recommendation that the resolution be adopted.44
The Committee on Rules report included amendments to H.Res. 895 that were to be considered as
adopted. The amendments made 13 changes to the original text of H.Res. 895. A comparison of
the amendments adopted by the Committee on Rules and the original language, as proposed by
Representative Capuano, can be found in the Appendix.
On March 11, 2008, the House debated and agreed to H.Res. 1031, which provided for the
adoption of H.Res. 895, as amended under a closed, self-executing rule.45 In his remarks
following the passage of H.Res. 895, Representative Capuano stated,
Tonight’s passage of H.Res. 895 establishing an Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE)
represents the most dramatic progress in years in the drive to strengthen ethics enforcement
in the House. It is the culmination of many months of deliberation and review by the Special
Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, created jointly by Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader
Boehner. I strongly believe that the approach we have taken to ethics enforcement will
improve the reputation of the House and will break the appearance of an ‘old boy network’
forever. The OCE brings a level of independence to the process because no current members
of Congress can serve on the panel. It also brings a level of transparency that is sorely
lacking in the current process by requiring that a public statement be issued on most matters
reviewed by the OCE. Taken together, these two fundamental elements will go a long way
toward restoring the public’s confidence in the people’s House.46
Office of Congressional Ethics
The OCE held its first public meeting on January 23, 2009, and began to implement the structural
requirements of H.Res. 895. It also adopted rules of procedure, a code of conduct, and rules for
the conduct of a review. The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) was reauthorized by the
House as part of the rules package (H.Res. 5) adopted by the 114th Congress on January 6, 2015.47
The following sections outline the structure, powers, authority, and procedures of the OCE.

(...continued)
“AMENDMENTS to the Proposed Reforms to the ETHICS PROCESS,” March 3, 2008.
43 Rep. Michael Capuano, “Opinion-Editorial: Time to Pass an Ethics Reform Bill With an Independent Board,” press
release, March 5, 2008.
44 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., March 10, 2008, H.Rept. 110-547 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 1.
45 Rep. Betty Sutton et al., “Establishing an Office of Congressional Ethics,” House debate, Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 154 (March 11, 2008), pp. H1515-H1535.
46 Rep. Michael Capuano, “Congressman Mike Capuano’s Statement on the Passage of H.Res. 895, Establishing an
Independent Office of Congressional Ethics,” press release, March 11, 2008.
47 H.Res. 5, §4(d) (113th Congress), agreed to January 3, 2013; “Rules of the House” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 159 (January 3, 2013), p. H6.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Structure
The OCE is structured to be nonpartisan. This goal is reflected in the composition of the board’s
membership, leadership schema, statutory qualifications, employment status of its members and
staff, and required oath (or affirmation) of office. In addition, the authorizing resolution specifies
a particular hiring process and requires an oath (or affirmation) of staff that OCE information not
be disclosed.
Board Membership
Six members and two alternates constitute the board. Each member may serve for four years,
subject to reappointment at the beginning of each Congress.48 Three members and an alternate are
appointed by the Speaker, subject to the approval of the minority leader, and a like number are
appointed by the minority leader, subject to the approval of the Speaker. Vacancies on the board
are filled by the most senior alternate nominated by the same congressional leader who nominated
the departing member. The alternate serves on the board until a replacement is named. If a
permanent replacement is not named within 90 days of the vacancy, the alternate continues to
serve for the remainder of the term, and the Speaker or minority leader, as applicable, will
nominate a new alternate.49 The Speaker and the minority leader, acting jointly, may remove a
board member for cause.50
The OCE membership structure is designed to create an incentive for the Speaker and the
minority leader to work together when choosing board members. Because no formal confirmation
process was established in H.Res. 895, the nominations of the Speaker and the minority leader
result in de facto appointments of chosen individuals to the board. Should the Speaker and the
minority leader not concur on board appointments, potential exists for open positions, which
could prevent the board from reaching a quorum.51 Table 3 lists the members of the board for the
114th Congress.
Table 3. Office of Congressional Ethics Board Membership
114th Congress (2015-2016)
Board Role
Name
Appointed by
Chair
Porter Goss
Speaker of the House
Co-Chair
David Skaggs
Minority Leader

Belinda Pinckney
Minority Leader

Karen English
Minority Leader

Jay Eagen
Speaker of the House

48 H.Res. 895 §1(b)(6)(A).
49 H.Res. 895 §1(b)(1).
50 H.Res. 895 §1(b)(6)(C). H.Res. 895 does not provide a direct definition of dismissal for cause. For executive branch
definitions see 5 U.S.C. §4303 on unacceptable performance, chapter 75 of Title 5 United States Code on adverse
actions, 5 C.F.R. §752.401 et seq. on implementing regulations, and 5 C.F.R. §752.403 on standards for action by an
employing authority.
51 H.Res. 895 §1(b)(8). H.Res. 895 establishes quorum as a majority of members of the board.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Board Role
Name
Appointed by

Allison Hayward
Speaker of the House
Alternate
Mike Barnes
Minority Leader
Alternate
Judy Biggert
Speaker of the House
Source: U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House of Representatives, “New Appointments to Office of
Congressional Ethics,” press release, January 8, 2014, at http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/boehner-pelosi-
announce-new-appointments-office-congressional-ethics; and U.S. Congress, Office of the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives, “Boehner, Pelosi Announce New Appointments to Office of Congressional Ethics,”
press release, January 8, 2014, at http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/boehner-pelosi-announce-new-
appointments-office-congressional-ethics/.
Pursuant to H.Res. 895 (110th Congress), Members of the OCE board are restricted to serving on
the board for no more than four consecutive Congresses (two consecutive terms).52 In the 113th
Congress (2013-2014), with the adoption of H.Res. 5, the House waived the restriction that OCE
board members may “not serve during more than four consecutive Congresses” and also allowed
board members who were initially appointed in the 110th Congress—and therefore supposed to be
ineligible to be appointed beyond the 112th Congress—to be reappointed through at least the 114th
Congress (2015-2016).53 These provisions were continued with the adoption of the rules for the
114th Congress (H.Res. 5).54
Oath of Office
Before board members begin their term, they are required to sign a document agreeing not to be a
candidate for the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives and execute an oath or affirmation
on disclosure of information.
Copies of the signed document are retained by the Clerk of the House as part of the records of the
House. The Clerk makes the documents available to the public, publishes the documents as part
of the Congressional Record, and makes a cumulative list of names available on the Clerk’s
website.55 The document contains the following statement:
I agree not to be a candidate for the Office of Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or
Resident Commissioner to, the Congress for purposes of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 until at least 3 years after I am no longer a member of the board or staff of the Office
of Congressional Ethics.56
Additionally, board members must execute an oath or affirmation in writing prior to assuming
board responsibilities. Copies of the oath or affirmation are provided to the Clerk as part of the
records of the House. The text of the oath is as follows:

52 H.Res. 895 §1(b)(6)(A).
53 H.Res. 5 (113th Congress), §4(d)(3)-(4).
54 H.Res. 5 (114th Congress), §4(d)(3)-(4).
55 H.Res. 895 §1(k)(2).
56 H.Res. 895 §1(k)(1).
Congressional Research Service
13

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose to any person or entity outside of the
Office any information received in the course of my service with the Office, except as
authorized by the board as necessary to conduct official business or pursuant to its rules.57
Board Leadership
The board is led by a chair and a co-chair. The chair is designated by the Speaker and the co-chair
is designated by the minority leader.58 The chair, or a majority of board members, has the
authority to call a board meeting.59
Qualifications
Board members are expected to be “individuals of exceptional public standing who are
specifically qualified to serve on the board by virtue of their education, training, or experience in
one or more of the following fields: legislative, judicial, regulatory, professional ethics, business,
legal, and academic.”60 Selection of board members is to be made without regard to political
affiliation.61
Individuals are prohibited from serving as board members if they were (1) a registered lobbyist
under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995;62 (2) registered as a lobbyist during the year prior to
appointment; (3) engaged in lobbying, or employed to lobby Congress; (4) an agent of a foreign
principal registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA);63 (5) a member of
Congress; or (6) an officer or employee of the federal government.64 Additionally, former
members, officers, and employees of the House cannot be appointed to the board in the year
following their time as a member, officer, or employee of the House.65
Restrictions on the political and outside activities of board members are designed to create the
independent, nonpartisan group necessary to conduct investigations in an expeditious manner. As
explained under “Investigative Procedure,” the OCE has a short time frame to conduct
investigations.

57 H.Res. 895 §1(f)(1)(A).
58 H.Res. 895 §1(b)(3).
59 H.Res. 895 §1(b)(8).
60 H.Res. 895 §1(b)(2).
61 H.Res. 895 §1(b)(4)(A).
62 P.L. 104-65, 109 Stat. 691, December 19, 1995, as amended by P.L. 105-166, 112 Stat. 38, April 8, 1998; and P.L.
110-81, 121 Stat. 735, September 14, 2007. For more information on the Lobbying Disclosure Act, see CRS Report
R40245, Lobbying Registration and Disclosure: Before and After the Enactment of the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act of 2007, by Jacob R. Straus; CRS Report RL34377, Lobbying Registration and Disclosure: The Role
of the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate, by Jacob R. Straus; and CRS Report RL31126, Lobbying
Congress: An Overview of Legal Provisions and Congressional Ethics Rules, by Jack Maskell.
63 22 U.S.C. §611 et seq. The Department of Justice maintains the Foreign Agents Registration Unit. More information
can be found on the FARA website at http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fara/.
64 H.Res. 895 §1(b)(4)(B)(i)(I)-(VI).
65 H.Res. 895 §1(b)(4)(B)(ii).
Congressional Research Service
14

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Employment Status
Members of the OCE board are not considered officers or employees of the House, but do receive
remuneration for their service. Board members receive a per diem equal to the daily equivalent of
the minimum rate of basic pay for GS-15 employees of the General Schedule for each day of
service, including travel time. Pay is only for time when the board member is engaged in
performance of duties for the board.66
Staff
The board, with the affirmative vote of at least four members, has the authority to hire staff and
fix their compensation.67 Staff is prohibited from engaging in “partisan political activity directly
affecting any congressional or presidential election,”68 and may not “accept public speaking
engagements or write for publication on any subject that is in any way related to [their]
employment or duties with the Office without specific prior approval from the chairman and
cochairman.”69 The board can terminate an employee with an affirmative vote of at least four
members.70
Before staff may begin employment they are required to execute an oath or affirmation on
disclosure of information. Copies of the oath or affirmation are provided to the Clerk as part of
the records of the House. The text of the oath is as follows:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose to any person or entity outside of the
Office any information received in the course of my service with the Office, except as
authorized by the board as necessary to conduct official business or pursuant to its rules.71
Staff is required to be impartial and unbiased when conducting an investigation. If a staff member
has a conflict of interest arising from “a personal or professional relationship with a subject, a
subject’s opponent in any election or a witness involved in an investigation, staff shall disclose
that fact to the Staff Director who shall disclose it to the Board.” If the board determines the
investigator cannot be impartial, he or she can be terminated from that investigation.72
Powers
The OCE is provided with specific powers to conduct investigations, hold hearings, pay
witnesses, and adopt rules. Some of these powers are enumerated in the OCE’s authorizing
resolution, and others are detailed in rules of conduct to be approved by the OCE.

66 H.Res. 895 §1(b)(7).
67 H.Res. 895 §1(h).
68 H.Res. 895 §1(k)(3)(D).
69 H.Res. 895 §1(k)(3)(E).
70 H.Res. 895 §1(i).
71 H.Res. 895 §1(f)(1)(A).
72 U.S. Congress, House, Office of Congressional Ethics, “Rule 5. Investigator is Impartial,” Rules for the Conduct of
Investigations, 111th Cong., 1st sess., p. 9, at http://oce.house.gov/pdf/20090127_rules_as_adopted.pdf. (Hereinafter,
OCE Investigations Rules.)
Congressional Research Service
15

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Investigations
The OCE’s primary responsibility is to conduct investigations in an independent, nonpartisan
manner, regarding allegations of misconduct against Members, officers, and staff of the House.
Following the investigation, the OCE is charged with referring matters, when appropriate, to the
Committee on Ethics. Investigations by the OCE are restricted to activities that occurred after
March 11, 2008, where a violation of “law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct in effect
at the time the conduct occurred and [were] applicable to the subject in the performance of his or
her duties or the discharge of his or her responsibilities.”73
In the 114th Congress, two changes related to OCE’s investigations were made with the adoption
of H.Res. 5. First, “any individual who is the subject of a preliminary review or second-phase
review by the board shall be informed of the right to be represented by counsel and invoking that
right should not be held negatively against them.”74 Second, the OCE has been instructed that it
“may not take any action that would deny any person any right or protection provided under the
Constitution of the United States.”75
Hearings and Evidence
The OCE is authorized to conduct meetings, hold hearings, meet in executive session, solicit
testimony, and receive evidence necessary to conduct investigations.76 Pursuant to OCE rules,
documents, recordings, or physical evidence “that was obtained in violation of any law, rule, or
regulation” may not be reviewed. To ensure compliance, individuals submitting evidence to the
OCE are asked to affirm that the evidence was not obtained in an illegal manner.77 OCE rules also
allow for witnesses and individuals subject to investigation to submit written comments to the
OCE. The OCE is also prohibited from considering privileged evidence without a waiver from
the House.78
Pay Witnesses
The OCE is authorized to pay witnesses in the same manner as prescribed in House Rule XI,
clause 5.79

73 OCE Investigations Rules, “Introduction,” p. 1.
74 H.Res. 5 (114th Congress), §4(d)(5).
75 H.Res. 5 (114th Congress), §4(d)(6). A similar provision was included in H.Res. 5, §2(a)(10) for the Committee on
Ethics. This provision amended Rule XI, clause 3.
76 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(D).
77 OCE Investigations Rules, “Rule 4. Evidence,” p. 8.
78 Ibid. The OCE’s policy is to follow the same privileges the House recognizes. Meeting between the authors and Leo
Wise, staff director and chief counsel, Office of Congressional Ethics, July 15, 2009.
79 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(E). House Rules XI, clause 5 states “Witnesses appearing before the House or any of its
committees shall be paid the same per diem rate as established, authorized, and regulated by the Committee on House
Administration for Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and employees of the House, plus actual expenses
of travel to or from the place of examination. Such per diem may not be paid when a witness has been summoned at the
place of examination.” See also U.S. Congress, House, “Rules XI, clause 5,” Rules of the House of Representatives
with Notes and Annotations, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-113/pdf/HMAN-113-
houserules.pdf. (Hereinafter, House Rules.)
Congressional Research Service
16

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

OCE Rules
The OCE is authorized to adopt rules necessary to carry out its duties. H.Res. 895 prescribes five
rules that the OCE must adopt. These rules cover
• termination of a preliminary review on any ground, including de minimis
matters;
• recommendations calling for the Committee on Ethics to dismiss a matter that
was subject to a second-phase review on any ground, including being de minimis
in nature;
• witness signing statements, acknowledging that the False Statements Act80
applies to testimony and documents provided to the OCE;
• prohibition of ex parte communications between board members or OCE staff
and individuals who are subjects of review or interested parties, and
communication between members, officers, or employees of the House with
board members or OCE staff regarding matters under review, except as
authorized by the board; and
• an OCE code of conduct, which includes the avoidance of conflicts of interest, to
govern the behavior of board members and staff.81
Information Disclosure
The OCE is required to establish procedures to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of
information received by the office. Breaches in confidentiality are to be investigated by the
board.82
Testimony received or information obtained by the OCE may not be disclosed to any individual
or group outside the OCE without the authorization of the board for purposes of conducting
official business.83 Testimony before the Committee on Ethics by board members and staff is
exempt from disclosure requirements.84
Prior to transmittal of recommendations or statements to the Committee on Ethics, individuals
under investigation have the right to present, orally or in writing, a statement on the investigation
to the board.85
Investigative Procedure
Pursuant to the authority granted by H.Res. 895, Section 1(c)(2)(F), the board is authorized to
create an investigatory process to examine and make recommendations on cases brought to the

80 18 U.S.C. §1001.
81 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(F)(i)-(iv).
82 H.Res. 895 §1(f)(1)(C).
83 H.Res. 895 §1(f)(1)(B).
84 H.Res. 895 §1(f)(2).
85 H.Res. 895 §1(f)(3).
Congressional Research Service
17

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

OCE’s attention. The process consists of four steps: submission of information, preliminary
review, second-phase review, and referral to the Committee on Ethics for further investigation or
dismissal of the complaint. Each step, with its authority pursuant to H.Res. 895, and relevant
OCE rules are detailed below.
Submission of Information
The OCE was established to conduct independent, nonpartisan reviews of allegations of
misconduct by Members, officers, and employees of the House and, when appropriate, to refer
matters to the Committee on Ethics under the Rules of the House. Accordingly, it has established
procedures for the public to file information alleging wrongdoing and outlines the process for
doing so on its website, http://oce.house.gov.
The following should be included in any submission:
(1) the name, address, telephone number and e-mail address, if any, of the person submitting
the information, and the organization s/he is affiliated with, if any;
(2) the full name of the subject of the allegation;
(3) the date(s) the alleged conduct occurred;
(4) a concise statement of facts (or, the source of the information in the event that the person
submitting the information does not have first-hand knowledge of the facts);
(5) the law, regulation or rule allegedly violated, if known;
(6) if applicable, name(s) and contact information for any potential witness(es);
(7) if applicable, copies of any documents related to the allegation; and
(8) a signed declaration acknowledging that section 1001 of title 18 United States Code
(popularly known as the False Statement Act) applies to the information provided. A copy of
the False Statements is available on the OCE’s website and can be provided on request.
All information will be reviewed by the OCE; however, submitting information does not
trigger an investigation. The decision to begin an investigation (preliminary review) lies
solely with the Board.86
OCE staff reviews information submitted by the public as well as information derived from other
sources, including the press. OCE staff or any board member may submit information for the
board’s consideration. For an investigation to proceed, at least two board members must concur.
Preliminary Stage Review
The first stage of an investigation is a preliminary review. The preliminary review requires a
“reasonable basis to believe the allegation based on all the information then known to the

86 OCE Investigations Rules, p. 6; and U.S. Congress, House, Office of Congressional Ethics, “Public Input,” at
http://oce.house.gov/public-input.html.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

board,”87 the written concurrence of two board members (one appointed by the Speaker and one
by the minority leader), and written notification by the board to the Committee on Ethics and the
individual subject to the review.88
Once a preliminary review has begun, it must be completed within 30 calendar or 5 legislative
days, whichever is later, from the receipt of the written request by a minimum of two board
members.89 Prior to, or at the conclusion of, the 30 calendar or 5 legislative days, the board votes
on whether to continue the review and advance the inquiry to a second-phase. To continue the
review, the board must find “probable cause to believe the alleged violation occurred based on all
the information then known to the board.”90 An affirmative vote of at least three board members
is required to proceed to a second-phase review. If the board does not vote to begin a second-
phase investigation by the end of the 30-calendar- or 5-legislative-day time period, the
investigation is terminated. The board, however, may vote to terminate an investigation at any
time during the preliminary-phase review with the affirmative vote of at least four members.91
Regardless of the OCE’s decision on proceeding to a second-phase review, the board must notify,
in writing, both the Committee on Ethics and the individual under investigation of the board’s
decision to continue or terminate the investigation. If the board terminates the inquiry, it has the
option of sending a report to the Committee on Ethics with its findings.92
Second-Phase Review
Should the board vote to conduct a second-phase review, it must be completed within 45 calendar
or 5 legislative days, whichever is later.93 Should the board determine that additional time is
needed to conduct the second-phase review, the time period can be extended for an additional 14
calendar days upon a majority vote of the board.94 This requires the affirmative vote of at least
four board members.95
When the OCE completes the second-phase review, the board is required to transmit a written
report, its findings, if any, and any supporting documentation to the Committee on Ethics.96 The
referrals must be accompanied by two documents: (1) a report which recommends dismissal,
further inquiry, or states that the board vote was a tie, and (2) findings. Neither document is to

87 OCE Investigations Rules, “Rule 7. Preliminary Review,” p. 10. Pursuant to OCE rule seven, a reasonable basis “to
believe an allegation exists when there is a reasonable and articulate basis for believing the allegation.”
88 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(1)(A).
89 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(1)(B).
90 OCE Investigations Rules, “Rule 8. Second-Phase Review,” p. 12. Pursuant to OCE rule eight, probable cause
“exists if the evidence is sufficient to lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain a strong
suspicion that a Member, officer or employee committed a violation.”
91 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(1)(C).
92 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(1)(C).
93 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(A)(i).
94 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(A)(ii).
95 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(B).
96 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(C).
Congressional Research Service
19

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

contain conclusions regarding the validity of the allegation or the guilt or innocence of the person
subject to the review—such matters are the sole purview of the Committee on Ethics.97
The OCE is also obligated to transmit the findings of its investigation, if any, to the Committee on
Ethics along with supporting documentation. The findings should include
• findings of fact;
• descriptions of relevant information that was not obtained and witnesses not
interviewed;
• recommendations for the issuance of subpoenas; and
• citations of relevant law, rule, regulation, or standard of conduct relevant to the
investigation.98
The findings should not include the names of cooperative witnesses, any conclusions regarding
the validity of the allegations, or statements on the guilt or innocence of the investigative
subject.99 With the findings, the OCE may submit supporting documents,100 and provide the
subject of the investigation a copy of the written report.101
Like the House Committee on Ethics, the OCE does not have jurisdiction over former Members
of the House. Thus, once a member leaves office, any inquiry or investigation against him or her
by either entity will cease in whatever phase a review may be.
The Committee on Ethics and Its Relationship to the OCE
At the conclusion of any second-phase review, the OCE is required to submit a report, and may
submit findings and supporting documentation, to the Committee on Ethics for final
disposition.102 Pursuant to Article 1, Section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution, “[e]ach House may
determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”103 For the House of Representatives, the

97 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(C)(i)(I)(aa)-(cc). See also Rep. Michael Capuano, “Summary of H.Res. 895: Establishing within
the House of Representatives an Office of Congressional Ethics,” press release, March 10, 2008. If the OCE finds that
there is “substantial reason to believe the allegations,” the matter must be referred to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. Substantial reason “exists where there is such relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” See also OCE Investigations Rules, “Rule 9. Referrals to the Standards Committee,”
p. 13.
98 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(C)(i)(II)(aa)-(cc).
99 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(C)(i)(II)(dd).
100 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(C)(i)(III).
101 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(C)(ii). The copy provided to the subject of the investigation is a statement of the nature of the
report and the board vote.
102 H.Res. 895 §1(c)(2)(C), and Task Force Democratic Members Report, pp. 14-18.
103 U.S. Congress, House, The Constitution of the United States, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Doc. 108-96 (Washington:
GPO, 2003), p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

investigative role is generally delegated to the Committee on Ethics.104 Pursuant to House Rules,
the Committee on Ethics can also open an investigation without an OCE referral.105
Pursuant to House rules, the Committee on Ethics may not receive any referral within 60 days
before a federal, state, or local election in which the subject of the case is a candidate.106
Once the Committee on Ethics receives a referral from the OCE, it must act within 45 days. At
that time, the chair must publicly release the committee’s actions together with the OCE report
and findings, unless the chair and ranking member jointly decide, or the committee votes, to
withhold the information for an additional 45 days.107 The committee is not required to release the
OCE findings if it agrees with an OCE decision to dismiss a particular case or chooses to dismiss
a case left unresolved by the OCE. The committee does, however, have the option of making the
OCE report and findings public.108
If the committee decides to take the additional 45 days to consider an OCE referral, at the end of
the second 45 days, the chair is required to make public the OCE written report and findings
unless the committee votes to initiate an investigation.109 Should the committee proceed to an
investigation, only that fact is announced.110 The announcement must include the name of the
applicable member, officer, or employee, and the alleged violation(s). If the committee deadlocks
on a matter referred by the OCE, it must release the OCE’s report and findings.111 At the end of
each Congress, any reports and findings not previously related are required to be released.112
In the event the Committee on Ethics conducts an investigation, it is conducted pursuant to
established committee rules.113 Pursuant to these rules, action on a case may be deferred at the
request of law enforcement or regulatory authorities.114
Before the Committee on Ethics publicly releases OCE findings and the committee’s statement
and report, if any, on a referral, the committee is required to give advanced notice of one calendar
day to the OCE and any member, officer, or employee who was the subject of a referral.115

104 House Rules, Rule XI, clause 3. See also CRS Report 98-15, House Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its
Evolution and Jurisdiction, by Jacob R. Straus.
105 For more information, see House Rules, Rule XI, clause 3.
106 House Rules, Rule XI, clause 3 (b)(8)(D).
107 Task Force Democratic Members Report, p. 15, and House Rules, Rule XI clause 3(b)(8). Receipt of a report by the
committee from the OCE automatically bypasses the committee’s Rule 16(a) for what constitutes a complaint.
108 Task Force Democratic Members Report, p. 15.
109 House Rules, Rule XI, clause 3 (b)(8)(B)(iii).
110 The OCE report and findings are not to be released until after completion of the process pursuant to committee rules
unless the investigative subcommittee does not conclude within a year. The committee is also required to make OCE
findings public at the end of a Congress pursuant to House Rules, Rule XI, clause 3 (b)(8)(B)(iii).
111 Task Force Democratic Members Report, p. 16.
112 Meeting with Omar Ashmay, staff director and general counsel, Office of Congressional Ethics, 2012.
113 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Ethics, “Rules,” 113th Cong., 1st sess., February 5, 2013, at
http://ethics.house.gov/about/committee-rules; and Democratic Members Report, p. 16.
114 Task Force Democratic Members Report, p. 16, and Ethics Committee Rules 15(f).
115 House Rules, Rule XI, clause 3 (b)(8)(A).
Congressional Research Service
21

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

The Capuano task force envisioned that the Committee on Ethics and the OCE would work
closely.116 The committee is to be notified early and throughout an OCE review.117 The committee
may also ask the OCE to stop a review if the allegation becomes the subject of a Committee on
Ethics investigation.118 In such an occurrence, the OCE board is required to refer the case to the
committee, and to treat the matter under the same rules as other OCE referrals. If the committee
does not reach a conclusion, it must notify the OCE board. The OCE board may choose to
complete a suspended review.119 Once a matter is returned to the OCE, it must proceed according
to the established process outlined above under “Investigative Procedure.”120
Referrals to Other Entities
The OCE may also, when appropriate, refer allegations to the Office of Compliance, House
Office of the Inspector General, House Commission on Congressional Mail Standards, and state
and federal authorities. OCE Rule 13 dictates situations under which referral to one of these
entities may be made.
Office of Compliance
Allegations related to laws covered by the Congressional Accountability Act121 may be referred to
the Office of Compliance.122
House Office of the Inspector General
Allegations of “fraud, waste and abuse in the operations of the House or joint entities of
Congress” may be referred to the Office of the House Inspector General.123

116 Task Force Democratic Members Report, p. 17.
117 Ibid.
118 Ibid., and OCE Investigations Rules, “Rule 12. Requests from the Standards Committee,” pp. 16-17.
119 Ibid.
120 Ibid.
121 P.L. 104-1, 109 Stat. 3, January 23, 1995. The Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) of 1995, as enacted,
applied 11 civil rights, labor, and workplace safety and health laws to the U.S. Congress and its associated agencies,
from which it had previously been exempt. See also Office of Compliance, “Congressional Accountability Act of
1995,” at http://www.compliance.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-Congressional-Accountability-Act.pdf. The
laws are, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. §621 et seq.); the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.); the
Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C. §2001 et seq.); the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. §201 et seq.); the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. §2611 et seq.); the Federal Service Labor-
Management Relations Statute (Title 5, Chapter 71 U.S. Code); the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. §651 et seq.); the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. §701 et seq.); and the Veteran’s employment and
reemployment rights (Title 38, Chapter 43 U.S. Code); and Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29
U.S.C. §2101 et seq.).
122 OCE Investigation Rules, “Rule 13. Referrals to Other Entities,” p. 17.
123 Ibid. For more information on the Office of the House Inspector General, see CRS Report R40133, Office of the
House of Representatives Inspector General, by Jacob R. Straus.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards
Allegations “relating to the proper use of the franking privilege” may be referred to the House
Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards.124
State and Federal Authorities
In consultation with the OCE chair and co-chair, the OCE staff can refer “information to state and
federal authorities in the event that information indicates imminent harm or a threat to public
safety.”125
Implementation
Funding
Pursuant to H.Res. 895, the OCE is authorized “such sums as necessary” from applicable
accounts of the House.126 Payments made by the OCE are made on vouchers signed by the chair
of the board and approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration. All
funds expended by the OCE are subject to regulations prescribed by the Committee on House
Administration.127 Table 4 shows the annual appropriations for the OCE since its inception in
FY2009.
Table 4. Annual Appropriations for the Office of Congressional Ethics
Fiscal Year
Enacted Appropriations
2009 $300,000
2010 $1,548,000
2011 $1,548,000
2012 $1,548,000
2013 $1,548,000
a
2014 $1,467,000
2015 $1,467,000

124 Ibid. For more information on the Franking Privilege or the House Commission on Congressional Mailing
Standards, see CRS Report RL34274, Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change, by
Matthew E. Glassman, CRS Report RL34458, Franking Privilege: Mass Mailings and Mass Communications in the
House, 1997-2013, by Matthew E. Glassman; and CRS Report RS22771, Congressional Franking Privilege:
Background and Recent Legislation, by Matthew E. Glassman.
125 Ibid., p. 18.
126 The Office of Congressional Ethics is funded through Legislative Branch appropriations from the “Allowances and
Expenses” account for the House of Representatives. For more information on Legislative Branch Appropriations, see
CRS Report R42500, Legislative Branch: FY2013 Appropriations, by Ida A. Brudnick; CRS Report R43151,
Legislative Branch: FY2014 Appropriations, by Ida A. Brudnick; and CRS Report R43557, Legislative Branch:
FY2015 Appropriations, by Ida A. Brudnick and R. Eric Petersen.
127 H.Res. 895 §1(l).
Congressional Research Service
23

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Source: P.L. 111-68, 123 Stat. 2028, October 1, 2009; P.L. 112-10, 125 Stat. 103, April 15, 2011; P.L. 112-74,
125 Stat. 1120, December 23, 2011; P.L. 112-175, 126 Stat. 1314, September 28, 2012; P.L. 113-76. 128 Stat.
422, January 17, 2014; and P.L. 113-235, December 16, 2014.
Notes:
a. The FY2013 continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175) provided funding for the legislative branch at the FY2012
level, increased by 0.612%, through March 27, 2013. Additional y, appropriations for FY2013 were
considered in the context of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25). For additional information
on the FY2013 continuing resolution, see CRS Report R42782, FY2013 Continuing Resolutions: Analysis of
Components and Congressional Action, by Jessica Tol estrup. For additional information on continuing
resolutions generally, see CRS Report R42647, Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Recent
Practices, by Jessica Tollestrup. For information on the OCE in the OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration
Transparency Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-155), see Appendix A. Preliminary Estimates of Sequestrable and Exempt
Budgetary Resources and Reduction in Sequestrable Budgetary Resources by OMB Account - FY 2013 and Appendix
B. Preliminary Sequestrable / Exempt Classification by OMB Account and Type of Budgetary Resource, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdf. For additional
information, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by Bill Heniff Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and
Shannon M. Mahan; and CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and Selected Program Exemptions and
Special Rules, coordinated by Karen Spar.
Public Information
Since the OCE was reauthorized in January 2009, the OCE, although not mandated to do so, has
issued quarterly reports.128 Each quarterly report provides a brief summary of OCE activities,
including citizen communications, a summary of the OCE process, and a summary of board
actions taken during the quarter and for the Congress. Table 5 provides a summary of the number
of cases OCE has considered between 2009 and the third quarter (July to September) 2014.

128 Copies of the OCEs quarterly reports can be found at http://oce.house.gov/reports.html.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Table 5. Office of Congressional Ethics Board Action, 2009-2014
Updated through January 23, 2015
Commence
Commence
Vote to
Commence
Phase II
Transmit
Transmit
Preliminary
Terminate
Phase II
Review
Referral for
Referral for

Review
Matter
Review
Extension
Review
Dismissal
111th Congress
2009
25 4 21 21 12 8
2010
44 24 20 15 10 10
Total 69 28 41 36 22 18
112th Congress
2011
22 5 14 10 7 2
2012 10 0 11 9 6 8
Total 32 5 25 19 13 10
113th Congress
2013
18 3 15 10 10 3
2014 a
18 11 7 7 6 2
Total 36 14 22 17 16 5
Source: CRS Compilation of data summarized in OCE Quarterly Reports, athttp://oce.house.gov/reports.html.
Notes: Column headers reflect the categories used by the OCE in its quarterly reports. For more information
on the stages of review in the headers, see pages 18-22, of this CRS report.
a. Data for 2014 is current through September 30, 2014. As of January 23, 2015, data for the fourth quarter
has not yet been made available.
Options for Congress
Creation of the OCE changed the relationship between the public and the House ethics process.
Even though the OCE is now six years old, there continue to be options which might further
clarify the OCE’s relationship with the public, rank-and-file House members, and the Committee
on Ethics. These options each have advantages and disadvantages for the structure of the OCE, its
relationship to the Committee on Ethics, and the House’s constitutional responsibility to
investigate its members. Consequently, careful comparison of all options for the future of the
OCE may be useful to ensure that the most effective process is created while ensuring the
continued enforcement of House ethics procedures. CRS takes no position on any of the options
identified in this report.
Create a Statutory OCE
The OCE exists pursuant to H.Res. 895 (110th Congress) and faces renewal on a biannual basis as
part of the House rules package. In January 2014, the OCE was reauthorized when H.Res. 5 was
agreed to.129 Because the OCE operates pursuant to a House resolution, a change in party control

129 H.Res. 5 (114th Congress), agreed to January 6, 2015; “Rules of the House” Congressional Record, daily edition,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
25

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

or a decision to exclude the OCE from the rules package in a future Congress might result in the
elimination of the office.
If the House wanted to ensure the OCE’s continuation, it could create a statutory ethics entity. A
permanent statutory office would not require reauthorization each Congress. If the House chose to
create a statutory office, should the House desire to alter or terminate the program, subsequent
legislation would be necessary to amend or terminate the program. Creation of a statutory ethics
office, even if only in the House, would require the concurrence of the Senate and the President’s
signature.
Reform Committee on Ethics to Include Public Outreach
Prior to the creation of the OCE, the Committee on Ethics did not allow public complaints to be
to made against Members of Congress.130 If the House wanted to provide an opportunity for
citizens to be involved in the ethics process without the creation of an independent ethics entity
(either by resolution or statute), the House could amend House or committee rules to allow the
Committee on Ethics to receive formal complaints or information from the general public.
Allowing the public to provide information directly to the Committee on Ethics could allay
constitutional concerns over the involvement of an independent entity in investigating and
recommending action on internal House enforcement matters. Instead of giving power to an
outside entity, the Committee on Ethics could establish mechanisms for the intake and evaluation
of citizen complaints prior to investigation and potential action of the full committee. This work
could be handled by a subcommittee or by the whole committee.
Should the Committee on Ethics assume this responsibility, the committee’s workload could
increase substantially. The OCE specifies the number of contacts its staff has with the public and
the number of investigations authorized as part of quarterly reports.131 It is possible that providing
the public with direct access to the Committee on Ethics might result in more information (at least
at the level currently handled by the OCE) being provided by the public. In addition, a citizen or
group providing information might expect the committee to provide updates on the status of
investigations.
Amend OCE Authority
The relationship between the OCE and the Committee on Ethics continues to evolve. Under the
provisions of H.Res. 895, as the OCE completes second-phase reviews and determines that a

(...continued)
vol. 161 (January 6, 2015), p. H7.
130 The Committee on Ethics allowed public complaints prior to 1997. In 1997, the Bi-Partisan House Ethics Task
Force recommended changes to the House ethics rules that prohibited public complaints. For more information see
Rep. Gerald Solomon, “Providing for Consideration of H.Res. 168, Implementing the Recommendations of the Bi-
Partisan House Ethics Reform Task Force,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, part 13 (September 18, 1997), pp. 19302-
19340; and CRS Report 98-15, House Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction, by Jacob
R. Straus.
131 U.S. Congress, House, Office of Congressional Ethics, Quarterly Report: January to March 2009, 111th Cong., 1st
sess., March 2009; and U.S. Congress, House, Office of Congressional Ethics, Quarterly Report: April - June 2009,
111th Cong., 1st sess., July 13, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

further investigation is necessary, the OCE board forwards a report and supporting documentation
to the Committee on Ethics.
Subpoena Power
The House could provide the OCE with limited subpoena power to enable the OCE board to
conduct more thorough investigations prior to referral to the Committee on Ethics. Providing
subpoena power to the OCE might reduce the workload and investigative burden of the
Committee on Ethics and prevent duplicative efforts on behalf of the OCE and committee staffs.
Chairman Capuano, in the task force report, explained that consideration was given to
empowering the OCE with subpoena power. During the discussions, the task force sought the
professional opinion of numerous experts (including the House parliamentarian, House general
counsel, and the Congressional Research Service).132
The decision not to include subpoena authority was based on various factors, including
timeliness.133 Challenges to a subpoena, it was felt, could hinder and complicate the OCE process
and prevent a prompt investigation. Moreover, because of Congress’s reluctance to delegate
subpoena authority to independent entities, if the task force had recommended giving the OCE
that authority, the legislative process might have been delayed while the House debated the merits
of the proposal.134
Currently, if a subpoena is deemed necessary, the House provides the OCE with the ability to
recommend to the Committee on Ethics that a subpoena be issued,135 as part of the authority
already delegated to the committee.136
OCE Follow Up
The House could also provide a mechanism whereby the OCE could formally follow up on
investigations forwarded to the Committee on Ethics. Pursuant to current practice, the OCE has
no recourse to follow a case once it is referred to the committee. Committee rules require that the
committee release the OCE report under certain circumstances.137
Additional OCE Functions
On March 5, 2009, Representative Ron Paul introduced H.Res. 216. The resolution, if agreed to
by the House, would have amended House Rules to require a certain period of time to elapse

132 Task Force Democratic Members Report, pp. 13-14. “Indirect” subpoena power refers to a subpoena issued by the
House Committee on Ethics on behalf of the OCE. Several measures were introduced in the House in the 110th
Congress calling for some form of an independent ethics commission with subpoena power. See, for example, H.R.
1136, H.R. 1754, H.R. 2544, H.R. 2822, H.R. 4239, and H.Res. 1018.
133 Task Force Democratic Members Report, pp. 13-14.
134 Ibid., p. 14.
135 Ibid.
136 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Ethics, “Rules,” 113th Cong., 1st sess., February 5, 2013, at
http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/Committee%20Rules%20for%20113th%20Congress.pdf.
137 House Rules, Rule XI, clause 3 (b)(8)(B)(iii).
Congressional Research Service
27

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

between introduction of legislation and a vote by the House. Included in the resolutions
provisions, Rule XXIX would be amended to allow citizens to petition the board of the Office of
Congressional Ethics to investigate potential violations of the new rule.138
Notwithstanding any provision of these rules, any citizen who is eligible to vote and who is
not an employee of the executive or judicial branch of the Government may petition the
board of the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate allegations that a member voted
for any measure that violated this rule.139
The addition to the OCE’s jurisdiction by amending House rules could be a way to involve the
investigative expertise of the OCE in other House matters. H.Res. 216 implies the OCE’s
authority to take “complaints” from the general public.140 This would appear to be incongruent
with their current mission to take “information” from public sources and would potentially need
to be clarified by the board or by Congress.
Take No Immediate Action
The House might determine that the current relationship between the OCE and the Committee on
Ethics is effective. Instead of creating an independent statutory ethics entity, reforming the
Committee on Ethics, or amending OCE statute, the House could continue to consider the OCE as
part of the rules package in subsequent Congresses. Changes to the OCE could be made on an as-
needed basis through House resolutions or through changes to the rules package for subsequent
Congresses.

138 House Rule XXIX in clause 1 applies the rules of the previous Congress to the current Congress, as applicable, and
states that the “rules of parliamentary practice comprised by Jefferson’s Manual shall govern the House in all cases to
which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Rules and orders of the House.” Clause 2
clarifies the use of words “imparting one gender” apply to the other gender as well. For more information, see House
Rules XXIX.
139 H.Res. 216, introduced March 5, 2009.
140 Should the House decide to allow the public to submit complaints directly to the OCE, one option might be to
require individuals who want to submit material to do so by making a sworn complaint. For example, on May 28, 2010,
Rep. Marcia Fudge introduced H.Res. 1416 to amend the Rules of the House “regarding the public disclosure by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of written reports and findings of the board of the Office of Congressional
Ethics.... ” Among other items, the resolution would amend Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8) to change reporting requirements
for OCE reports and make changes to the OCE inquiry process surrounding “sworn complaint[s] from a citizen
asserting personal knowledge of any alleged violation by that Member, officer, or employee of any law, rule,
regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to such individual in the performance of his duties or the discharge
of his responsibilities.”
Congressional Research Service
28

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures

Appendix. Rules Committee Amendments to
H.Res. 895
Table A-1. Initial and Amended Language Creating the
Office of Congressional Ethics
H.Res. 895 as Introduced
Rules Committee Amendments
Appointments made jointly by the Speaker and the
Require that all appointments to the board be made by the
minority leader (three designated as Speaker’s
Speaker and the minority leader.
appointees and three designated as minority leader’s
appointees) within 90 days of adoption or vacancy. If
any position remains vacant beyond 90 days, the
appointment shall be made by the Speaker or
minority leader, as applicable [sec. 1(b)(1)].
N/A
Expand the board to include at least one alternate member
from each party.
Require that any two board members needed to
Provide that the OCE reviews be initiated at the request of
initiate a review [sec. 1(c)(1)(A)].
at least one member appointed by the Speaker and one
member appointed by the minority leader.
N/A
Clarify that the board can initiate preliminary reviews.
Second-phase review commences unless the board
Require the affirmative vote of at least three members to
votes to terminate the preliminary review (with not
move to a second-phase review.
less than four members voting to terminate) [sec.
1(c)(1)(C)].
N/A
Provide that if three members do not vote to commence a
second-phase review, then the matter is terminated.
N/A
Clarify that subjects of OCE review may make presentations
to the board before the board transmits a recommendation
or statement to the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct.
N/A
Provide that any time before the end of the preliminary
review, four members of the board can vote to terminate it.
N/A
Clarify that members, officers, and staff may not
communicate with the OCE regarding OCE cases.
N/A
Impose new confidentiality rules and ex parte
communication bars on OCE members and staff.
N/A
Clarify that the elective office agreement pertains also to
alternate members and OCE staff but refers only to seeking
a seat in the U.S. House or Senate.
N/A
Subject OCE staff to restrictions on political activities.
The committee may not receive any referral from the
Clarify that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
board of the Office of Congressional Ethics within 60
may not receive referrals from the OCE within 60 days
days before an election in which the subject of the
prior to federal, state, or local elections.
referral is a candidate [sec. 3].
Source: H.Res. 895 (110th Congress), introduced December 19, 2007. 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.,
March 10, 2008, H.Rept. 110-547 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 2-3.
Congressional Research Service
29

---

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures


Author Contact Information

Jacob R. Straus

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

Acknowledgments
This report revises an earlier report by Mildred Amer, who retired as a Specialist in American National
Government at CRS.

Congressional Research Service
30

---