House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct: A Brief History of
Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Updated November 25, 2008
Mildred Amer
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct:
A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Summary
This report provides a history of the creation and evolution of the House
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Also known as the House Ethics
Committee and the Committee on Standards, it was first established as a select
committee in 1966. It became a standing committee in 1967, and has undergone two
major reorganizations, one in 1989 and the other in 1997.
This 10-member, bipartisan committee is authorized to (1) recommend to the
House of Representatives actions that would establish or enforce standards of official
conduct; and (2) investigate alleged violations by House Members, officers, and
employees of any law, rule, regulation, or standard of official conduct relating to their
official duties. The committee may, after several stages in an investigative process,
recommend any appropriate sanctions, including expulsion of a Member.
The committee also has jurisdiction over the House Code of Official Conduct
and is assigned responsibility for administering the gift, outside earned income,
financial disclosure and travel, and other regulations established by House rules, the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, and the Honest
Government and Open Leadership Act of 2007.
A substantial part the committee’s work is advisory and done by its Office of
Advice and Education, established to provide information and guidance to House
Members, officers, and employees on standards of conduct applicable in their official
capacities. This office also conducts educational briefings on laws and the House
rules of conduct, and responds to requests for advisory opinions.
In 1975, the committee announced its first disciplinary case against a Member
of the House. Since then, it has taken some form of public action on cases involving
at least 82 other Representatives, ranging from public acknowledgment that it had
considered, but dismissed, a complaint against a Member; to the noting of infractions
not meriting sanctions; to the issuance of a formal, public “Letter of Reproval” or a
“Letter of Admonition” or a public admonishment from the committee; to the
recommendation of censure, reprimand, or expulsion by the House.
In the 110th Congress, the House established the independent Office of
Congressional Ethics (H.Res. 895) to initiate investigations of and review alleged
violations of House rules and applicable laws by Members and staff. When
warranted, this office must refer its findings and recommendations (without any
conclusions on the validity of any allegations) to the House Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct for further action. The committee maintains the final authority
to discipline Members and employees as well as its prerogative to initiate
investigations.
For additional information please refer to CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement
of Congressional Rules of Conduct, by Mildred Amer.
Contents
In troduction ..................................................1
Recent Developments..........................................3
Evolution and Background.......................................5
Jurisdiction ...................................................8
Changes in Jurisdiction.........................................9
Changes in Procedures.........................................11
2008 Changes............................................11
2005 Changes............................................12
1997 Changes............................................13
1989 Changes............................................14
Miscellaneous Changes....................................15
Disciplinary Cases............................................16
List of Tables
Table 1. Congressional Committee Assignments
House Standards of Official Conduct Committee....................21
House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct: A Brief History of Its Evolution and
Jurisdiction
Introduction
The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was established in theth1
90 Congress by H.Res. 418 on April 13, 1967. Rules of the House of
Representatives designate the committee to meet the key elements of its
responsibility for self-discipline as authorized by Article I, Section 5 of the
Constitution, which states in part that “Each House may determine the Rules of its
proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
The committee has jurisdiction over the House Code of Official Conduct and
is assigned responsibility for administering the gift, outside earned income, and
financial disclosure requirements established by House rules, the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-521), the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-
This 10-member, bipartisan committee, often referred to as the House Ethics
Committee or House Standards Committee, is authorized to (1) recommend actions
that would establish or enforce standards of official conduct; and (2) investigate
alleged violations by House Members, officers, and employees of any law, rule,
regulation, or standard of official conduct relating to their official duties.3 After
1 Congressional Record, vol. 113, April 13, 1967, pp. 9426-9448. See also U.S. Congress,
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual, 110th Cong., 2nd sess.
(Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 4-8; and [http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/
2 The committee periodically publishes a comprehensive Ethics Manual and issues
supplementary memoranda to assist Members, officers, and employees in interpreting the
various ethics laws, rules, and regulations. The most recent Manual was published duringth
the 110 Congress. U.S. Congress, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Housethnd
Ethics Manual, 110 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008); and
[http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/2008_House_Ethics_Manual.pdf], visited October 25,
2008. For the most current information on House rules of conduct and guidelines from the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, visit the committee’s website at
[http://www.house.gov/ ethics].
3 House Rule XI, Clause 3(a)(1)(2). The members of the committee are appointed by the
leaders of their respective parties. The size of the committee was reduced from 14 to 10 on
September 18, 1997, with the adoption of H.Res. 168, which revised the committee’sth
operation and procedures. When first created, the committee had 12 Members. In the 105
(continued...)
several stages in an investigative process, the committee may recommend to the
House any appropriate sanction, including the expulsion of a Member.4
The committee may also report to appropriate federal or state authorities, with
the approval of the House or two-thirds of the committee members, any substantial
evidence of law violations by a Member or staff.5
Pursuant to House Rule X, clause 5(a)(4)(A) and (B); Rule XI, clause 3; and the
Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L 101-194, §803(b), (c), and (e), 103 Stat. 1774), the
committee’s investigative and adjudicative functions are “bifurcated,” or separated.6
At the beginning of each Congress, the Speaker and the minority leader appoint a 20-
person pool of Members (10 from each party) not serving on the House Standards of
Official Conduct Committee, who are then to be available to serve on any
investigative subcommittee formed during that Congress.
An investigative subcommittee is the initial phase in the bifurcation process. If
this subcommittee finds a violation of House rules has occurred, it then transmits a
Statement of Alleged Violations (formal charges) to the chair and ranking member
of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The chair of the House
Standards Committee is then required to appoint an adjudicative subcommittee. The
members of this subcommittee are members of the Committee on Standards who
were not members of the investigative subcommittee as well as the chair and ranking
member of the full committee. The adjudicative subcommittee judges the evidence
in the Statement of Alleged Violations and recommends sanctions, if its members
concludes they are warranted.
Complaints alleging House rules violations can only be filed with the committee
by a Member of the House or the new Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE),
discussed below. Complaints not filed by the OCE or Members of the House must
have a current Representative certify in writing that the information is in good faith
and warrants consideration by the committee. Prior to 1997, members of the public
(under certain conditions) as well as Members of the House could file a complaint
against a Member, officer, or employee of the House. That changed in September
3 (...continued)
Congress, the committee was not organized until September 1997 because of a
comprehensive review of its procedures by a special task force. On January 7, 1997, a
Select Committee on Ethics was established to complete an investigation begun by thethth
committee created by the 104 Congress. Most of the committee members from the 104
Congress were appointed to the new select committee, which was to cease to exist upon the
final disposition of its investigation or by January 21,1997. See Rep. Richard Armey,
“Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, January 7, 1997, p. 123.
4 House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(1)(2); and U.S. Congress, Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, Summary of Activities One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th Cong., 2nd sess.,
H.Rept. 108-806 (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 56-60.
5 House Rule XI, Clause 3(a)(3)
6 The bifurcation process has been used in 18 committee investigations.
1997 when the House amended the rule governing complaints filed by individuals
who are not Members.7
The House, by resolution, may direct the Standards of Official Conduct
Committee to conduct a specific investigation. There is also a “statute of limitations”
for investigations.8
The substantial part of the committee’s work, however, is advisory and done by
the Office of Advice and Education, which was established within the committee in
January 1990 by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194).9 This office is
responsible for providing information and guidance to House Members, officers, and
employees on standards of conduct applicable in their official capacities. The office
also responds to requests for advisory opinions and interpretations of applicable laws,
rules, and statutes.10 Further, the office is now required to offer annual training for
Members and staff on the House rules of conduct.11 New staff must receive such
training within 60 days of employment.12
Recent Developments
During the 110th Congress, after years of discussions about the establishment of
investigative and enforcement mechanisms to supplement or replace the two
congressional ethics committees,13 the House created the Office of Congressional
Ethics (OCE) with the adoption of H.Res. 895 on March 11, 2008.14
This office is empowered to initiate investigations of alleged violations of
House rules and applicable laws by Members and staff. When warranted, it can refer
7 “Implementing the Recommendations of the Bipartisan Ethics Task Force,” Congressional
Record, vol. 143, September 18, 1997, pp. 19302-19340.
8 The committee is not permitted to investigate, under most circumstances, alleged violations
that occurred before the third previous Congress.
9 See House Rule XI, Clause 3(a)(4).
10 Useful information about the committee’s activities and advisory opinions can be found
on its website at [http://www.house.gov/ethics].
11 House Rule XI, Clause 3(a)(6)(A).
12 House Rule XI, Clause 3(a)(6)(B).
13 For an analysis of creating such entities, as well as the constitutional issues, see CRS
Report RL33790, “Independent” Legislative Commission or Office for Ethics and/or
Lobbying, by Jack Maskell and R. Eric Petersen.
14 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Rules, Providing for the Adoption of the Resolution
( H.Res. 895), Establishing Within the House of Representatives An Office of Congressionalrdnd
Ethics and For Other Purposes, report to accompany H.Res. 1031, 110 Cong., 2 sess.,
H.Rept. 110-547 (Washington: GPO, 2008); “Establishing An Office of Congressional
Ethics,” Congressional Record, vol. 154, March 11, 2008, pp. H1515-H1536; and Carl
Hulse, “House Creates A Panel to Watch Over Lawmakers’ Behavior,” The New York
Times, March 12, 2008, p. 1. For additional information, refer to CRS Report RL30764,
Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: An Historical Overview, by Mildred Amer.
its findings and recommendations (without any conclusions on the validity of any
allegations) to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for further
action. The committee maintains the final authority to discipline Members and
employees as well as initiate investigations.15
On the first day of the 110th Congress, when the House adopted its rules, it
added more restrictions on the acceptance of gifts by Members and staff, placed more
limits on acceptance of travel expenses from outside sources for “officially connected
travel,” and added for more transparency in the disclosures of such travel.16 Included
in the new rules are a ban on all gifts from lobbyists (Rule XXV, clause 5(a)); and
a clarification that tickets to sporting events are to be valued at “face” value or at
what the general public would pay (Rule XXV, clause 5(a)). The new rules clarified
further the limits on the acceptance from private sources of expenses for “officially
connected” travel (House Rule XXV, clause 5(b)) and require Members and staff
who accept such travel to receive prior approval from the House Standards
Committee and to certify to the committee before traveling that lobbyists would not
be involved in any way (Rule XXV, clause 5(d)). The rules mandate that the
committee develop standards for reasonable expenses incurred by Members and staff
for private, “officially connected” travel (Rule XXV, clause 5(i)).
The new rules also generally prohibit Members and staff from flying on private
aircraft other than a plane they own (Rule XXIII, clause 15(b)(2)).
Additional changes to the House ethics rules affecting the Committee on
Standards are in the Honest Government and Open Leadership Act (P.L. 110-82)
which requires Members and designated staff to notify the committee within three
days of the beginning of negotiations for future (post Congress) employment and
compensation (House Rule XXVIII).
Also during the 110th Congress, the House passed a resolution requiring the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to act within 30 days when a Member
of the House is indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct in a
court of the United States.17 If the committee does not empanel an investigative
subcommittee to review the allegations, it must submit a report to the House
describing why it has not done so and detailing what actions, if any, it has taken in
15 This new office is discussed further in the section of this report entitled “Changes in
Procedures.”
16 H.Res. 6, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, January 4, 2007, pp. H.19-H38.
See also CRS Report RS22566, Acceptance of Gifts by Members and Employees of theth
House of Representatives Under the New Ethics Rules of the 110 Congress, by Jackth
Maskell; and CRS Report RL34166, Lobbying Law and Ethics Rules Changes in the 110
Congress, by Jack Maskell.
17 “Directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to Respond to the Indictment
of Any Member of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 5, 2007,
pp. H5971-H5976, and H5978-H5979.
response to the allegations. This provision has not been incorporated in House rules
and will expire at the end of the 110th Congress.18
During the 109th Congress, on June 7, 2006, the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct held a rare open hearing on potential changes in travel guidelines
and rules for Members and staff.19 According to journalistic accounts, the impetus
was general interest in lobbying, travel, and gift reform.20
Evolution and Background
Prior to the creation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the
first House Code of Official Conduct and financial disclosure rule in the 90th
Congress (1967-1969), there was no uniform or consistent mechanism for
congressional self-discipline.21 Some allegations of misconduct were investigated
by the House Administration Committee, or, more often, in an ad hoc manner by
special or select committees. Election disputes and charges of election fraud were
also investigated by special ad hoc committees or other committee and
subcommittees. Other allegations were considered by the House without prior
committee action. The creation of the Ethics Committee responded to a need for
systematizing House responses to questions of official misconduct and Members’
need for a reliable, accessible source of information about potential conflicts of
interest and other ethical dilemmas that are inherent to serving in Congress.
Ethics committees and standards of conduct for the House as well as the Senate
had been suggested since at least the mid-1950s, but it was not until a decade later
that these proposals gained sufficient support for enactment.
18 This information was verified on October 24, 2008, in a telephone call to the office of the
House Parliamentarian.
19 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
[http://ethics.house.gov/Pubs/Default.aspx?Section=29], visited October 31, 2008; and
Elana Schor, “The House Ethics Committee Solicits Input in Rare Hearing,” The Hill, June
20 See, Susan Ferrechio, “Scandals Churn Up Strong Winds Behind Efforts to Rewrite
Lobbying Rules,” CQ Today, January 9, 2006, pp. 3, 6; Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “Hill Weighs
Curbs on Lobbying,” The Washington Post, January 12, 2006, p. A4; and Carl Hulse, “2
Parties Rush to Offer Curbs on Lobbying,” The New York Times, January 18, 2006, pp. A1,
A17.
21 In 1958, Congress adopted the Code of Ethics for Government Service, which articulated
broad ethical guidelines for all government officers and employees, including Members of
Congress and congressional staff. The Code was adopted as a concurrent resolution
(H.Con.Res. 175, July 11, 1958; 72 Stat., Part 2, § B12), rather than a statute. Through the
years, however, its impact has been strengthened by the House and Senate Ethics
Committees, which have included it as a standard for discipline in several cases. See, for
example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation
of Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement,thnd
and Modernization Act of 2003, report, 108 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 108-722 (Washington:
GPO, 2004), p. 38.
During hearings before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress
in 1965, considerable testimony was presented on the ethical conduct of Members;
and the need for House and Senate codes of conduct, financial disclosure regulations,
and a House Ethics Committee (the Senate had created one in 1964).22 In its final
report, the Joint Committee called for the creation of a Committee on Standards and
Conduct in the House.23
In October 1966, shortly after the Joint Committee issued its report, and
following publicized allegations of misconduct by former House Education and
Labor Committee Chairman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., the House created the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct (H.Res. 1013).24
As reported, H.Res. 1013 granted the select committee powers similar to those
ultimately given the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.25 The resolution
was amended on the floor, however, and the select committee’s powers were limited
to (1) recommending additional House rules or regulations necessary to insure proper
standards of conduct by House Members, officers, and employees; and (2) reporting
violations of law, by majority vote, to the proper federal and state authorities. Like
the current committee, the select committee’s membership was to be bipartisan.
Because of the brevity of the select committee’s existence (October 1966 to
January 1967), the members of the committee concluded that they could not
“prudently recommend changes in existing provisions of law or recommend new
ones at this time.”26 Instead, they recommended that (1) the committee be continued
as a select committee in the 90th Congress; (2) legislation introduced in the 90th
Congress on standards and conduct should be referred to the select committee; and
(3) Members of the House should be asked for suggested changes in existing statutes.
Included in the report was a draft resolution for continuation of the select committee.
During the first session of the 90th Congress, numerous resolutions were
introduced to provide for the establishment of a Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct. The House Rules Committee held hearings on these proposals early in
22 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Index to Hearings
Before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, pursuant to S.Res. 2, hearingsthstnd
p. 45.
23 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of
Congress, final report pursuant to S.Res. 2, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 89-1414
(Washington: GPO, 1966), p. 48.
24 Congressional Record, vol. 112, October 19, 1966, pp. 27713-27730.
25 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Creating a Select Committee on Standards
and Conduct, report to accompany H.Res. 1013, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 89-2012
(Washington: GPO, 1966).
26 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Report Under the
Authority of H.Res. 1013, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 89-2338 (Washington: GPO, 1966).
standing committee to be known as the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct.27
H.Res. 418, which was adopted on April 13, 1967, established a 12-member,
bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.28 Its sole function was to
recommend changes in laws, rules, and regulations that were needed to establish and
enforce House standards of official conduct. The first members of the committee
were appointed shortly thereafter.
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct held its first hearings in the
summer of 1967.29 Subsequently, it issued a report recommending
!continuation of the committee as a select committee;
!changes in the committee’s jurisdiction and powers;
!creation of a Code of Official Conduct and financial disclosure rules
for Members, officers, and employees of the House;
!establishment of standardized controls by the House Administration
Committee over committees using counterpart funds (foreign
currencies held by U.S. embassies that can only be spent in the
country of origin);
!a prompt review of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (reporting of
campaign expenditures) by the House; and
!compliance by House candidates with applicable provisions of the
Code of Official Conduct.30
Pursuant to this report, the House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1099,
which contained many of these recommendations.31 That resolution was amended
27 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Establishment of a Standing Committee to be
Known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and for Other Purposes, reportthst
to accompany H.Res. 418, 90 Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 90-178 (Washington: GPO, 1967).
28 Congressional Record, vol. 113, April 13, 1967, pp. 9426-9448.
29 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Standards of Official
Conduct, hearings, 90th Cong., 1st sess., August 16-17, 23-24, 1967, and September 14, 21,
30 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Code of Conduct for
Members and Employees of the House, report under the authority of H.Res. 418, 90th Cong.,nd
31 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Amending H.Res. 418, 90th Congress, to
Continue the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as a Permanent Standing
Committee of the House of Representatives, and for Other Purposes, report to accompanythnd
H.Res. 1099, 90 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 90-1248 (Washington: GPO, 1968).
and adopted by the House on April 3, 1968.32 It provided for (1) continuation of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as a permanent standing House
committee; (2) enumeration of the committee’s jurisdiction and powers; (3) the first
House Code of Official Conduct (Rule XLIII); and (4) the first financial disclosure
requirements for Members, officers, and designated employees (Rule XLIV).33
Jurisdiction
H.Res. 1099 authorized the committee to (1) recommend to the House
legislative or administrative actions deemed necessary for establishing or enforcing
standards of conduct; (2) investigate allegations of violations of the Code of Official
Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to
Members, officers, and employees in the performance of official duties, and after
notice and a hearing, recommend to the House appropriate action; (3) report to
appropriate state and federal authorities, subject to House approval, evidence of
violations of law by Members, officers, and employees in the performance of official
duties;34 and (4) issue and publish advisory opinions for the guidance of Members,
officers, and employees.
The committee was also given jurisdiction over measures relating to the House
Code of Official Conduct and financial disclosure. In addition, H.Res. 1099 imposed
several limitations on the Ethics Committee. These limits, except where noted, are
still in effect in House Rule XI, clause 3(a). They stipulate that:
!there must be an affirmative vote of seven out of 12 committee
members for the issuance of any report, resolution, recommendation,
or advisory opinion relating to the official conduct of a Member,
officer, or employee or the investigation of such conduct;35
!investigations, other than those initiated by the committee, can be
undertaken only upon receipt of a complaint, in writing and under
oath, from a Member of the House, or an individual not a Member
if the committee finds that such complaint has been submitted by the
32 Congressional Record, vol. 114, April 3, 1968, pp. 8776-8812.
33 Only a portion of the disclosures required by this two-part rule was to be available to the
public.
34 With the adoption of H.Res. 168 (105th Cong., 1st sess.) on September 18, 1997, the House
voted to permit an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the full Standards Committee or the
approval of the House for the referral of evidence of violations of law to the appropriate law
enforcement authorities. Previously, this referral authority had been granted only to the
Select Committee on Ethics for one year (1966) and later to only the full House, although
reformers for many years had advocated giving it back to the to the committee.
35 This seven Member requirement was replaced in 1974 with “an affirmative vote by a
majority of the members of the committee” to accommodate any subsequent changes in the
committee’s size. In 1991, pursuant to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the membership was
increased to 14. However, in 1997, with the adoption of the recommendation of the Ethics
Reform Task Force (H.Res. 168), the membership was reduced to 10.
individual to no fewer than three Members who have refused in
writing to transmit the complaint to the committee;36
!investigations of alleged violations of any law, rule, etc., that was
not in effect at the time of the alleged violation are prohibited;37 and
!members of the committee are not eligible to participate in any
committee proceeding relating to their official conduct.38
H.Res. 1099 also empowered the committee to hold hearings, receive testimony,
and issue subpoenas in the course of conducting an investigation.
Changes in Jurisdiction
On July 8, 1970, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was given
jurisdiction over lobbying activities as well as those involving the raising, reporting,
and use of campaign funds.39 Subsequently, pursuant to the adoption of the House
rules for the 94th Congress (1975-1977), jurisdiction over campaign contributions was
transferred to the House Administration Committee.40 With the adoption of the
House rules for the 95th Congress (1977-1979), jurisdiction41 over lobbying was
transferred to the House Judiciary Committee, and its jurisdiction over measures
relating to financial disclosure was transferred to the House Rules Committee.42
On March 2, 1977, in the 95th Congress, the House adopted H.Res. 287, which
contained several amendments and additions to the House rules of conduct.43
Included were the first House public financial disclosure rule and limits on outside
earned income and unofficial office accounts as well as limitations on gifts, the
franking privilege, and foreign travel. Pursuant to H.Res. 287, the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct assumed jurisdiction over these additional rules of
36 H.Res. 168, adopted September 18, 1997, changed the requirements for the filing of
complaints by non-Members to require that such complaints be transmitted by a Member
who “certifies in writing to the committee that he or she believes the information is
submitted in good faith and warrants the review and consideration of the Committee.”
37 This rule was expanded by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 to include a statute of
limitations of three previous Congresses for investigations of alleged violations.
38 Provisions were made for the Speaker to replace the Member for the duration of any such
case. In 1977, the House rules were also amended to provide a mechanism for a committee
member to disqualify himself/herself from participating in an investigation in which he/she
states in writing and under oath that he/she cannot render an impartial decision.
39 Congressional Record, vol. 116, July 8, 1970, pp. 23136-23141.
40 Congressional Record, vol. 121, January 14, 1975, p. 20.
41 Congressional Record, vol. 123, March 9, 1977, pp. 6811-6817.
42 Congressional Record, vol. 123, January 4, 1977, p. 53. Note, the committee still has
substantive jurisdiction over financial disclosure pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act
of 1978 (P.L. 95-521).
43 Congressional Record, vol. 123, March 2, 1977, pp. 5885-5953.
conduct and was authorized to maintain the public financial disclosure reports filed
by Members, officers, and designated employees.44 In addition, a Select Committee
on Ethics, chaired by Representative Richardson Preyer (D-NC), was established to
assist in the implementation of the new rules.
On July 14, 1977, a resolution establishing the House Intelligence Committee
authorized the Committee on Standards to investigate any unauthorized disclosure
of intelligence or intelligence-related information by a House Member, officer, or
employee and report any substantiated allegations to the House.45
In August 1977, with the enactment of P.L. 95-105, which amended the Foreign
Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, the committee was designated as the “employing
agency” for the House and authorized to issue regulations governing the acceptance
by House Members and personnel of gifts, trips, and decorations from foreign
governments.
In 1978, government-wide public financial disclosure requirements were
mandated with the enactment of the Ethics in Government Act (P.L. 95-521).
Subsequently, with the adoption of the House rules for the 96th Congress (1979-
1981), the provisions of the House financial disclosure rule were replaced by those
of the Ethics Act and incorporated into House rules.46 This act delegated to the
Committee on Standards review, interpretation, and compliance responsibilities for
the public financial disclosure reports that henceforth were to be filed with the Clerk
of the House.
Subsequently, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194), which amended
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, included a variety of ethics and pay reforms
for the three branches of government that further expanded the responsibilities of the
House Committee on Standards.47 These included enforcement of the act’s ban on
honoraria, limits on outside earned income, and restrictions on the acceptance of
gifts. The committee was also given the responsibility for consideration of any
requests for a written waiver of the limits imposed by the House gift ban rule.
44 In 1989, the office of the Clerk of the House became the repository for House public
financial disclosure reports.
45 Congressional Record, vol. 123, July 14, 1977, pp. 22932-22949.
46 Congressional Record, vol. 125, January 15, 1979, p. 9.
47 The Ethics Reform Act, which passed the House on November 16, 1989, and was signed
into law (P.L. 101-194) on November 30, 1989, also mandated certain changes in the
committee’s procedures, infra. See U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Bipartisan Taskstst
Force on Ethics on H.R. 3360, committee print, 101 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO,
Changes in Procedures
2008 Changes. On March 11, the House created the Office of Congressional
Ethics (OCE), an independent House office to review and submit formal complaints
of wrongdoing (without any conclusion on their validity) to the Committee on48
Standards of Official Conduct. H.Res. 895 amended the procedural rules of the
Committee on Standards (House Rule XI, clause 3). The action followed the
recommendations of the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, established by
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner in January
2007 to consider whether the House should create an “outside” ethics enforcement
entity.49 Chaired by Representative Michael Capuano, the task force held a number50
of executive briefings and, on April 19, 2007, a public hearing.
H.Res. 895 established the OCE, composed of six board members jointly
appointed by House leaders. Current House Members, federal employees, and
lobbyists are not eligible to serve on the board, composed of private citizens with a
wide range of professional experience. The board’s responsibility is to review
allegations of misconduct by Members, officers, and employees of the House and
then, if appropriate, make recommendations to the Committee on Standards of51
Official Conduct for its consideration. Any referrals to the Standards of Official
Conduct Committee are to be acted on in accord with the committee’s current rules.
The committee is required to make a public announcement of its disposition of
certain referrals within specific time frames.
The OCE board is required to act in secrecy on all matters and communicate
solely with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Final authority to either
48 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Rules, Providing for the Adoption of the Resolution
( H.Res. 895), Establishing Within the House of Representatives An Office of Congressionalthnd
Ethics and For Other Purposes, report to accompany H.Res. 1031, 110 Cong., 2 sess.,
H.Rept. 110-547 (Washington: GPO, 2008); “Establishing An Office of Congressional
Ethics,” Congressional Record, vol. 154, March 11, 2008, pp. H1515-H1536; and Carl
Hulse, “House Creates A Panel to Watch Over Lawmakers’ Behavior,” The New York
Times, March 12, 2008, p. 1. For additional information, refer to CRS Report RL30764,
Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: An Historical Overview, by Mildred Amer.
49 Rep. Michael E. Capuano, “Dear Colleague” letter, December 19, 2007,
[http://www.house.gov/ capuano/news/2007/ 121907ethics/Dear%20Colleague%20Letter.
pdf], visited October 29, 2008; U.S. House, Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement,
[http://www.house.gov/capuano/news/2007/121907ethics/Ethics%20Report.pdf], visited
October 29, 2008; and Susan Davis, “Pelosi, Boehner Name Eight Members to Ethics Task
Force,” Roll Call, February 1, 2007, pp. 3, 22. The other Members on the task force were
Reps. Robert Scott, Betty McCollum, David Price, Lamar Smith (ranking member), Dave
Camp, David Hobson, and Todd Tiahrt.
50 U.S. House, Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, Public Hearing on Ethics
Process, 110th Cong, 1st sess., April 19, 2007 (unpublished), [http://www.house.gov/
capuano/news/2007/121907ethics/Hearing%20Transcript%20-%20working.pdf], visited
January 15, 2008.
51 Former Members and staff of the House could not serve on the board sooner than one year
after leaving House employment.
dismiss a case referred to it or to empanel an investigative subcommittee is still the
responsibility of the committee, thus keeping authority for any investigation and
proposed discipline of a Member or staff under the control of current Members of the
House.
No public announcements will be required when neither the board nor the
Standards of Official Conduct Committee find wrongdoing. The OCE does not have
subpoena power, and no cases may be referred to the Standards Committee within
The first members of the OCE were appointed in July 2008.52
2005 Changes. On January 4, 2005, when the House adopted H.Res. 5, its
rules for the 105th Congress, it included several provisions affecting the Committee
on Standards’ procedures in handling allegations against a House Member, officer,
or employee as well as procedures to be followed when the conduct of Member,
officer, or employee might be referenced in the course of an investigation against
someone else.53 Subsequently, on April 27, 2005, the changes were dropped when
the House deleted all amendments to the committee’s procedures that had been
adopted earlier in the year.54
Other major changes in the composition and rules of procedure of the House55
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct occurred in 1989 and 1997.
52 Speaker of the House, “Pelosi, Boehner Announce Appointments to New Office of
Congressional Ethics,” press release, July 24, 2008, [http://speaker.house.gov/
newsroom/pressreleases?id=0762], visited October 29, 2008; and Molly Hooper, “House
Leaders Make Selection for Six-Member Outside Ethics Board,” CQ Today, July 25, 2009,
p. 7. The members are former Representatives David Skaggs (chair), Porter Goss (vice
chair), Karan English, and Yvonne Braithwaite Burke, former House CAO Jay Eagen, and
former professor and chief of staff of the Federal Election Commission Allison Hayward.
The alternates are former Representative and federal judge Abner Mikva and former
Representative Bill Frenzel.
53 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, January 4, 2005, pp.
H7-H31.
54 “Amending the Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, April
in the 109 Congress, by Mildred Amer.
55 During the 103rd Congress, the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress held two
hearings on reform of the congressional ethics process. The most discussed topics included
streamlining the ethics process and including non-Members as part of that process. No
action, however, was taken on the any of the committee’s recommendations relating the
ethics process. See U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress,
Organization of the Congress, Final Report of the Joint Committee on the Organization ofrdst
Congress, 103 Cong.,1 sess., S.Rept. 103-215, vol. II (Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 123-
129; and U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization
of Congress, Final Report of the House Members of the Joint Committee on therdst
Organization of Congress, 103 Cong.,1 sess., H.Rept. 103-413, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO,
1997 Changes. On September 18, 1997, after seven months of study, the
House adopted, with amendments, the recommendations of the Ethics Reform Task56
Force, which had been established in February 1997. The 10-member task force
was mandated to review the existing House ethics process and recommend reforms57
of that process. It was chaired by Representatives Bob Livingston (R-LA) and Ben
Cardin (D-MD). At the same time that the House approved the establishment of the
task force on February 12, it also approved a 65-day moratorium on the filing of new
ethics complaints to enable the Task Force to conduct its work “in a climate free58
from specific questions of ethical propriety.” That moratorium was extended
several times prior to adoption of the task force’s recommendations.
During the course of its deliberations, the task force conducted several days of
hearings, the majority of which were held in closed session. Testimony was received
from experts in the ethics process, attorneys who had represented respondents before
the House Ethics Committee, and Members of the House, some of whom had served
on the Ethics Committee.
The major changes in the ethics process adopted by the House on September 18,
!altering the way individuals who are not Members of the House file
complaints with the committee by requiring them to have a Member
of the House certify in writing that the information is submitted in
good faith and warrants consideration by the Committee on59
Standards of Official Conduct;
!decreasing the size of the committee from 14 members to 10;
!establishing a 20-person pool of Members (10 from each party) to
supplement the work of the Ethics Committee as potential
appointees to investigative subcommittees that the committee might
establish; 60
56 “Implementing the Recommendations of Bipartisan House Ethics Task Force,”
Congressional Record, vol. 143, September 18, 1997, pp. 19302-19340.
57 Congressional Record, vol. 143, February 12, 1997, pp. 2058-2059.
58 Congressional Record, vol. 143, February 12, 1997, p. 2059.
59 This procedure superseded a process whereby individuals who were not Members of the
House could file complaints with the Standards Committee only after they had submitted
allegations to at least three House Members, who had refused in writing to transmit the
complaint to the committee.
60 The first pool of 20 Members selected to serve on investigative committees of the
Standards Committee was appointed on November 13, 1997. See The Speaker Pro Tempore
[Rep. Ray La Hood], “List of Republican and Democratic Members Selected to Serve As
‘Pool’ For Purposed Relating To The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,”
Congressional Record, vol. 143, November 13, 1997, p. 26569. The House leadership has
subsequently appointed a 20-person pool of Members in each Congress.
!requiring the chair and ranking minority member of the committee
to determine within 14 calendar days or 5 legislative days,
whichever comes first, if the information offered as a complaint
meets the committee’s requirements;61
!allowing an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the
committee or approval of the full House to refer evidence of
violations of law disclosed in a committee investigation to the
appropriate state or federal law enforcement authorities;62
!providing for a nonpartisan, professional committee staff;
!allowing the ranking member on the committee to place matters on
the committee’s agenda; and
!decreasing the maximum service on the committee from six years to
four years during any three successive Congresses and required at
least four members to be rotated off the committee at the end of each
Congress.63
These changes took effect in the 105th Congress. After the members of the
committee were appointed for the 105th Congress in September 1997, they voted to
carry over three pending cases from the 104th Congress and apply the new procedures
to each of those cases.
1989 Changes. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194) contained
provisions affecting the three branches of government and also mandated changes in
the House Ethics Committee.64 It established the Office of Advice and Education,
effective January 1, 1990. This office is part of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, but is separate from its enforcement functions. Its staff offers
training, guidance, and provides recommendations to Members, officers, and
employees of the House on standards of conduct applicable to their official duties.
Other changes implemented by the 1989 act that are still applicable include:
61 Previously, there was no specific time limit for this determination.
62 With the exception of a brief period in 1966, only a vote by the full House previously
permitted referrals of possible violations of law to the appropriate authorities.
63 When the House adopted its rules for the 106th Congress (1999-2001), it changed the
committee service rule and also voted to eliminate the rule requiring four members of the
Standards Committee to rotate off the committee every Congress. This action returned the
committee’s service requirement to what it had been after the adoption of the Ethics Reform
Act of 1989 (no more than three Congresses in any period of five successive Congresses).
See Congressional Record, vol. 145, January 6, 1999, p. 54.
64 Congressional Record, vol. 135, November 16, 1989, pp. 29469-29509.
!“bifurcation” (separation) within the committee of its investigative
and adjudicative functions;65
!a requirement that the committee report to the House on any case it
has voted to investigate and that any Letter of Reproval or other
committee administrative action may be issued only as part of a final
report to the House;
!a statute of limitation prohibiting the committee from initiating or
undertaking an investigation of alleged violations occurring prior to
the third previous Congress unless they are related to a continuous
course of conduct in recent years;
!a guarantee that any Member who is the respondent in any Ethics
Committee investigation may be accompanied by one counsel on the
House floor during consideration of his/her case; and
!a time limit of committee service of no more than three out of any
five consecutive Congresses.
The act also increased the size of the committee’s membership from 12 to 14.
That change, however, was superceded by the 1997 reforms that reduced the size of
the committee from 14 to10 members.
Miscellaneous Changes. Changes in the committee’s procedures over the
last 30 years that remain in effect include the following: (1) on January 3, 1975, atth
the commencement of the 94 Congress, pursuant to the adoption of the Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974, the committee rules were changed to permit a majority
vote (instead of 10 of the then-12 members) to approve committee reports,
recommendations, advisory opinions, and investigations;66 (2) on January 4, 1977,
the House adopted a rule permitting a member of the committee to disqualify
himself/herself from participating in an investigation upon submission of an affidavit67
of disqualification in writing and under oath; and (3) on January 15, 1979, House
rules were amended to prohibit information, testimony, and the contents of a
complaint or note of its filing from being publicly disclosed unless specifically
authorized by the full committee.68
65 Bifurcation has thus far been implemented in 18 committee investigations.
66 Congressional Record, vol. 120, October 8, 1974, p. 34470.
67 Congressional Record, vol. 123, January 4, 1977, p. 53.
68 Congressional Record, vol. 125, January 15, 1979, p. 8.
Disciplinary Cases69
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has operated cautiously
through the years in exercising its disciplinary authority and responsibilities. For
example, the committee is careful not to discuss publicly allegations received and
those under review before determining their merit or deciding to begin a preliminary
inquiry. Committee rules prohibit the chairman and ranking member from making
public statements about matters before the Ethics Committee unless authorized to do
so by the committee. Members and staff may not disclose any evidence relating to
an ongoing investigation unless authorized by the committee. While preserving the
authority of the full committee, the ethics reforms adopted September 18, 1997, grant
discretion, when appropriate, to the chairman and ranking member to make public
statements about matters before the committee.70
As granted by House Rules, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
has several options at the conclusion of any formal investigation. It may recommend
no further House action, issue a “Letter of Reproval”71 or a “Letter of Admonition”72
without recommending action by the full House, or recommend one or more
sanctions if it determines a rules violation has occurred. The sanctions that may be
69 Visit [http://www.house.gov/ethics/Historical_Chart_Final_Version.htm] for a historical
summary of cases provided by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
There is no single comprehensive official source for documenting all of the cases considered
by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Good resources includend
“Congressional Ethics Cases, 1976-1980,” in Congressional Ethics, 2 ed. (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, 1980), pp. 21-47; “Ethics and Criminal Prosecutions,” in Guideth
to Congress, 5 ed., vol. II (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 2000), pp. 915-988,
supplemented by various editions of Congress and the Nation, published quadrenially by
Congressional Quarterly Inc.; and Mary Ann Noyer, Catalogue of Congressional Ethics
Cases, 1796-1992 (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1995).
70 For example, it may be appropriate to respond to unauthorized press accounts of
investigations or to respond to misinformation. See U.S. Congress, House Ethics Reformth
Task Force, Report of the Ethics Reform Task Force on H.Res. 168, committee print, 105st
Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 11-12.
71 A public Letter of Reproval is a sanction created by the committee and first used in 1987.
It is an administrative action authorized under the rules of the House and issued as part of
a public report from the committee after a formal investigation. It is an expression by the
committee that the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee was improper but that no
further action is required by the House. Committee rules implemented following the
adoption of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 mandate that any Letter of Reproval or other
committee administrative action may only be issued as a final report to the House. The
committee has issued five public “Letters of Reproval.”
72 The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has resolved several complaints by
means of a letter to a respondent without a formal investigation. According to the
committee, “In the past such letters have not been formally termed ‘letters of admonition,’
but this term accurately describes the substance of these letters.” Unlike a Letter of
Reproval, a Letter of Admonishment is not authorized under House rules. Such a letter was
sent to a Member of the House in 2004. See [http://www.house.gov/ethics/
Delay_memo.htm], p. 2, and U.S. Congress, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,thnd
Summary of Activities One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108 Cong., 2 sess., pp. 62-68.
recommended include expulsion, censure, reprimand or admonishment;73 a fine,
denial or limitation of any right, privilege, or immunity of the Member that is
permitted under the Constitution; or any other sanction deemed appropriate by the
Ethics Committee.74 Typically, the House has supported the committee’s
recommendations, although it is not required to do so. However, in two instances,
the House changed a censure recommendation from the committee to a reprimand;
and in two additional instances changed a reprimand recommendation from the
committee to censure.75
Since its inception, published accounts have indicated that the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct has taken some form of action on cases involving at
least 83 Representatives, including two Speakers of the House and a Majority
Leader.76 Its actions have ranged from public acknowledgment that it is considering
the merits of a complaint against a Member, to the dismissal of complaint, to the
73 The first admonishments from Committee on Standards of Official Conduct came in 2004
at the conclusion of a formal investigation of allegation related to voting on the Medicare,
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. In its report, which did
not require full House action, the investigative subcommittee noted that “It is the intention
of this investigative subcommittee that publication of this report will serve as a public
admonishment of … [the three Members under investigation] regarding their conduct in this
matter.” See U.S. Congress, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of
Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare, Prescription Drug, Improvement,th
and Modernization Act of 2003, report from the Investigative Subcommittee, 108 Cong.,nd
74 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Ethics Manual, p. 11.
See also CRS Report RL31382, Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative
Discipline in the House of Representatives, by Jack Maskell.
75 “Censure Proceedings in the House,” in Guide to Congress, 5th ed., vol. II (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, 2000), p. 935; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, “Historical Summary of Conduct Cases in the House of Representatives
[http://ethics.house.gov/Pubs/Default.aspx?Section=15], visited October 31, 2008. Note that
censure, reprimand, or admonition are traditional ways in which parliamentary bodies have
disciplined their members and maintained order and dignity in their proceedings. In the
House of Representatives, a “censure” is a formal vote by the majority of Members present
and voting on a resolution disapproving a Member’s conduct, with generally the additional
requirement that the Member stand at the “well” of the House chamber to receive a verbal
rebuke and witness the reading of the censure resolution by the Speaker of the House. A
“reprimand” involves a lesser level of disapproval of the conduct of a Member than that of
a “censure,” and is thus a less severe rebuke by the institution. It is of relatively recent
origin. When the House has reprimanded some Members, adoption of the recommendation
of reprimand from the Committee on Standards has constituted the reprimand. For more
information, refer to CRS Report RL31382, Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine:
Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives, by Jack Maskell.
76 This number is an informed estimate based on announcements by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct or House Members who have been the subject of any formal
or informal inquiry. See also footnote 69.
recommendation of punishments discussed above.77 Four Members of the House
have been censured, and two expelled following investigations by the committee.78
The committee’s first announced action was in 1968 at the request of the then-
Speaker John McCormack.79 This was an inquiry into roll-call voting irregularities
that caused some Members who were out of town to be recorded as having voted.
The committee concluded that problem was not deliberate and was the result of an
overworked tally clerk. It also urged the House to install a modernized system of
voting.80
The next announced committee action, in 1975, was its first investigation into
allegations of misconduct by a Member.81 After completing its inquiry on this matter
in 1976, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct recommended and the
House concurred in the reprimand of a Member for financial wrongdoing. This was
the first reprimand of a Member of the House, a sanction now viewed as less severe
than a censure. Adoption by the House of the committee’s report recommending a
reprimand constitutes that punishment, while the censure of a Member involves the
Speaker reading the committee’s finding and censuring the Member, who is required
to stand in the well of the House. Since 1976, seven other Members have been
reprimanded.
The committee has also noted infractions not meriting sanctions for 12
Members. Twenty-five Representatives have left the House after court convictions,
after inquiries were initiated by the committee, or after charges were brought by the
committee but before House action could be completed. In each case, the Members’
departure has ended their cases because the Ethics Committee does not have
jurisdiction over former Members.
In the 97th, 98th, and 109th Congresses the committee conducted investigations
concerning the alleged improper relationship of House Members and congressional
77 See CRS Report RL30764, History of Congressional Ethics Enforcement, by Mildred
Amer.
78 In some cases, the committee has begun an inquiry, but stopped at the request of the
Department of Justice which was also investigating the same Member. See, for example,
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Summary of Activitiesrdnd
One Hundred Third Congress, 103 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 103-873 (Washington: GPO,
1994), pp. 7-8; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
[http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/Press%20Statement%20Renzi.pdf], visited October 31,
79 “Communication from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,” Congressional
Record, vol. 115, June 19, 1969, p. 16629; and Richard Lyons, “House Set Probe on Ghost
Vote,” The Washington Post and Times-Herald, October 2, 1968, p. A7.
80 Ibid., and “House Group Urges Roll-Call Reform,” The New York Times, December 19,
81 Since this case, the committee has taken some form of public action against 82 other
Representatives. This figure is based on information publicly provided by the committee or
by Members of the House who were the subject of an inquiry or investigation.
pages.82 As a result of the committee’s work during 1982 and 1983, two
Representatives were censured by the House.83
Near the end of the 109th Congress (2006), after reports of alleged improper
communications between a Member of the House and former pages, the House
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct voted unanimously to “establish an
Investigative Subcommittee regarding any conduct of House Members, officers, and
staff related to information concerning improper conduct involving Members and
Current and Former pages.”84 The Investigative Subcommittee issued its report on
December 8, 2006. Although expressing concern over the conduct of some Members,
officers, and employees of the House, it concluded that “no current Members or
employees of the House had violated the House Code of Official Conduct.”85
Although the subcommittee recommended no further investigative proceedings to
determine violations of House rules or standards of conduct, it noted that its report
should serve as a strong reminder to Members, officers, and employees of the
House that they are obligated to pursue specific and non-specific allegations of
improper conduct between a Member or House employee and a participant in the
House Page Program…. The failure to exhaust all reasonable efforts to call
attention to potential misconduct … is a present danger to House pages and to the86
integrity of the institution of the House.
The report also contained recommendations for reforming the operation of the page
program.
Also, in the 98th Congress, the committee conducted an investigation of alleged
improper alterations of House documents. In the 99th Congress, it conducted an
82 See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Summary of
Activities Ninety-Eighth Congress, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-1174 (Washington:
GPO, 1984), pp. 3-4; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Officialthnd
Conduct, Summary of Activities One Hundred Ninth Congress, 109 Congress, 2 sess.,
H.Rept. 109-744 (Washington: GPO, 2007), pp. 18-20.
83 The Members involved are included in the count of 83 Members who have been the
subject of an inquiry/investigation and discipline by the committee and the House.
84 “Bipartisan Ethics Committee Launches Investigation of House Page Program
Allegations,” press release, at [http://www.house.gov/ethics/Press_Statement_Page_
Subcomm.htm], visited February 28, 2008; and Charles Babington, “Police Find No Report
of A Foley Dorm Incident,” The Washington Post, October 6, 2006, pp. A1, A4. In addition,
the Justice Department and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement also investigated
the allegations. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct Involving Members and Currentthnd
or Former House Pages, 109 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 109-733 (Washington: GPO, 2006),
pp. 9-10.
85 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of
Allegations Related to Improper Conduct Involving Members and Current or Former Housethnd
Pages, 109 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 109-733 (Washington: GPO, 2006), pp. 2-3.
86 Ibid., p. 3.
investigation of allegations of improper political solicitations. No Members of the
House were implicated in these cases.
In the 102nd Congress, the Ethics Committee considered allegations of
impropriety involving the “bank” of the House of Representatives and found 325
current/former Members had overdrafts during the 39-month period of review, but
no further action was taken by the House in the “bank” matter. Also in the 102nd
Congress, on August 11, 1992, the committee formed a task force to review evidence
to determine the necessity of an investigation of the operations of the House post
office. The committee deferred any action in the post office matter at the request of
the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice has prosecuted some Members
and former Members of the House as a result of its investigations into the House
“bank” and post office.
Table 1. Congressional Committee Assignments
House Standards of Official Conduct Committee
MemberPartyStateDistrictBegan AssignmentEnded Assignment
Price, C. MelvinDIL24thMay 1, 1967January 2, 1969
Teague, Olin E.DTX6thMay 1, 1967January 2, 1969
Evins, Joseph L.DTN4thMay 1, 1967January 2, 1969
Abbitt, Watkins M.DVA4thMay 1, 1967January 2, 1969
Aspinall, Wayne N.DCO4thMay 1, 1967January 2, 1969
Kelly, Edna F.DNY12thMay 1, 1967January 2, 1969
Halleck, Charles A.RIN2ndMay 1, 1967January 2, 1969
Arends, Leslie C.RIL17thMay 1, 1967January 2, 1969
Betts, Jackson E.ROH8thMay 1, 1967January 2, 1969
Stafford, Robert T.RVTALaMay 1, 1967January 2, 1969
Quillen, James H. RTN1stMay 1, 1967January 2, 1969
Williams, Lawrence G.RPA7thMay 1, 1967January 2, 1969
Price, C. Melvin DIL24thJanuary 29, 1969January 2, 1971
Teague, Olin E. DTX6thJanuary 29, 1969January 2, 1971
Abbitt, Watkins M. DVA4thJanuary 29, 1969January 2, 1971
Aspinall, Wayne N.DCO4thJanuary 29, 1969January 2, 1971
Hébert, F. EdwardDLA1stJanuary 29, 1969January 2, 1971
Holifield, ChetDCA19thJanuary 29, 1969January 2, 1971
Arends, Leslie C.RIL17thJanuary 29, 1969July 24, 1969
Betts, Jackson E.ROH8thJanuary 29, 1969January 2, 1971
Stafford, Robert T.RVTALaJanuary 29, 1969January 2, 1971
Quillen, James H.RTN1stJanuary 29, 1969January 2, 1971
Williams, Lawrence G.RPA7thJanuary 29, 1969January 2, 1971
Hutchinson, EdwardRMI4thJanuary 29, 1969January 2, 1971
Reid, Charlotte T.RIL15thOctober 7, 1969January 2, 1971
MemberPartyStateDistrictBegan AssignmentEnded Assignment
Price, C. MelvinDIL24thFebruary 4, 1971January 2, 1973
Teague, Olin E.DTX6thFebruary 4, 1971January 2, 1973
Abbitt, Watkins M.DVA4thFebruary 4, 1971January 2, 1973
Aspinall, Wayne N.DCO4thFebruary 4, 1971January 2, 1973
Hébert, F. Edward DLA1stFebruary 4, 1971January 2, 1973
Holifield, ChetDCA19thFebruary 4, 1971January 2, 1973
Betts, Jackson E.ROH8thFebruary 4, 1971January 2, 1973
Stafford, Robert T.RVTALaFebruary 4, 1971September 16, 1971
Quillen, James H.RTN1stFebruary 4, 1971January 2, 1973
Williams, Lawrence G.RPA7thFebruary 4, 1971January 2, 1973
Hutchinson, EdwardRMI4thFebruary 4, 1971January 2, 1973
Reid, Charlotte T.RIL15thFebruary 4, 1971October 7, 1971
King, Carleton J.RNY30thOctober 27, 1971January 2, 1973
Spence, Floyd D.RSC2ndOctober 27, 1971January 2, 1973
Price, C. MelvinDIL23rdJanuary 24, 1973January 2, 1975
Teague, Olin E.DTX6thJanuary 24, 1973January 2, 1975
Hébert, F. EdwardDLA1stJanuary 24, 1973January 2, 1975
Holifield, Chet DCA 19thJanuary 24, 1973December 31, 1974
Flynt, John James Jr. DGA6thJanuary 24, 1973January 2, 1975
Foley, Thomas S.DWA5thJanuary 24, 1973January 2, 1975
Quillen, James H. RTN1stJanuary 24, 1973January 2, 1975
Williams, Lawrence G.RPA7thJanuary 24, 1973January 2, 1975
Hutchinson, Edward RMI4thJanuary 24, 1973January 2, 1975
King, Carleton J. RNY29thJanuary 24, 1973December 31, 1974
Spence, Floyd D.RSC2ndJanuary 24, 1973January 2, 1975
Hunt, John E.RNJ1stJanuary 24, 1973January 2, 1975
MemberPartyStateDistrictBegan AssignmentEnded Assignment
Price, C. MelvinDIL23rdJanuary 20, 1975January 2, 1977
Teague, Olin E. DTX6thJanuary 20, 1975January 2, 1977
Hébert, F. EdwardDLA1stJanuary 20, 1975January 2, 1977
Flynt, John James Jr.DGA6thJanuary 20, 1975January 2, 1977
Foley, Thomas S.DWA5thJanuary 20, 1975January 2, 1977
Bennett, Charles E. DFL3rdJanuary 20, 1975January 2, 1977
Spence, Floyd D.RSC2ndJanuary 28, 1975January 2, 1977
Quillen, James H. RTN1stJanuary 28, 1975January 2, 1977
Hutchinson, EdwardRMI4thJanuary 28, 1975January 2, 1977
Quie, Albert H.RMN1stJanuary 28, 1975January 2, 1977
Mitchell, Donald J.RNY31stJanuary 28, 1975January 2, 1977
Cochran, ThadRMS4thJanuary 28, 1975January 2, 1977
Flynt, John James Jr.DGA6thJanuary 19, 1977January 2, 1979
Teague, Olin E.DTX6thJanuary 19, 1977December 31, 1978
Bennett, Charles EDFL3rdJanuary 19, 1977January 2, 1979
Hamilton, Lee H.DIN9thJanuary 19, 1977January 2, 1979
Preyer, L. RichardsonDNC6thJanuary 19, 1977January 2, 1979
Flowers, WalterDAL7thJanuary 19, 1977January 2, 1979
Spence, Floyd D.RSC2ndJanuary 19, 1977January 2, 1979
Quillen, James H.RTN1stJanuary 19, 1977January 2, 1979
Quie, Albert H. RMN1stJanuary 19, 1977January 2, 1979
Cochran, ThadRMS4thJanuary 19, 1977December 26, 1978
Fenwick, Millicent H. RNJ5thJanuary 19, 1977January 2, 1979
Caputo, Bruce F.RNY23rdJanuary 26, 1977January 2, 1979
MemberPartyStateDistrictBegan AssignmentEnded Assignment
Bennett, Charles E.DFL3rdJanuary 31, 1979January 2, 1981
Hamilton, Lee H. DIN9thJanuary 31, 1979January 2, 1981
Preyer, L. RichardsonDNC6thJanuary 31, 1979January 2, 1981
Slack, John M. Jr.DWV3rdJanuary 31, 1979March 17, 1980
Murphy, Morgan F.DIL2ndJanuary 31, 1979December 20, 1979
Murtha, John P. Jr. DPA12thJanuary 31, 1979January 2, 1981
Spence, Floyd D.RSC2ndJanuary 24, 1979January 2, 1981
Hollenbeck, Harold C. RNJ9thJanuary 24, 1979January 2, 1981
Livingston, Robert L.RLA1stJanuary 24, 1979January 2, 1981
Thomas, William M. RCA18thJanuary 24, 1979January 2, 1981
Sensenbrenner, F. Jas Jr. RWI9thJanuary 24, 1979January 2, 1981
Cheney, Richard B.RWYALaJanuary 31, 1979January 2, 1981
Stokes, Louis DOH21stFebruary 6, 1980January 2, 1981
Rahall, Nick J. II DWV4thMarch 26, 1980January 2, 1981
Stokes, LouisDOH21stJanuary 28, 1981January 2, 1983
Rahall, Nick J. IIDWV4thJanuary 28, 1981January 2, 1983
Alexander, William V. Jr.DAR1stJanuary 28, 1981January 2, 1983
Wilson, CharlesDTX2ndJanuary 28, 1981January 2, 1983
Holland, Kenneth L.DSC5thJanuary 28, 1981January 2, 1983
Bailey, Donald A.DPA21stJanuary 28, 1981January 2, 1983
Spence, FloydRSC2ndJanuary 28, 1981January 2, 1983
Conable, Barber B. Jr. RNY35thJanuary 28, 1981January 2, 1983
Myers, John T.RIN7thJanuary 28, 1981January 2, 1983
Forsythe, Edwin B.RNJ 6thJanuary 28, 1981January 2, 1983
Brown, HankRCO4thJanuary 28, 1981January 2, 1983
Hansen, James V.RUT1stJanuary 28, 1981January 2, 1983
MemberPartyStateDistrictBegan AssignmentEnded Assignment
Stokes, LouisDOH21stJanuary 6, 1983January 2, 1985
Rahall, Nick J. IIDWV4thJanuary 6, 1983January 2, 1985
Jenkins, Edgar L.DGA9thJanuary 6, 1983January 2, 1985
Dixon, Julian C.DCA28thJanuary 6, 1983January 2, 1985
Fazio, Victor H.DCA4thJanuary 6, 1983January 2, 1985
Coyne, William J.DPA14thJanuary 6, 1983January 2, 1985
Spence, FloydRSC2ndJanuary 6, 1983January 2, 1985
Conable, Barber B. Jr.RNY30thJanuary 6, 1983January 2, 1985
Myers, John T.RIN7thJanuary 6, 1983January 2, 1985
Forsythe, Edwin B.RNJ13thJanuary 6, 1983March 29, 1984
Brown, HankRCO4thJanuary 6, 1983January 2, 1985
Hansen, James V.RUT1stJanuary 6, 1983January 2, 1985
Bliley, Thomas J. Jr. RVA3rdMay 9, 1984January 2, 1985
Dixon, Julian C.DCA28thJanuary 7, 1985January 2, 1987
Jenkins, Edgar L.DGA9thJanuary 30, 1985January 2, 1987
Fazio, Victor H.DCA4thJanuary 30, 1985January 2, 1987
Coyne, William J.DPA14thJanuary 30, 1985January 2, 1987
Dwyer, Bernard J.DNJ6thJanuary 30, 1985January 2, 1987
Mollohan, Alan B.DWV1stJanuary 30, 1985January 2, 1987
Spence, Floyd RSC2ndJanuary 30, 1985January 2, 1987
Myers, John T.RIN7thJanuary 30, 1985January 2, 1987
Hansen, James V.RUT1stJanuary 30, 1985January 2, 1987
Whitehurst, G. William RVA2ndJanuary 30, 1985January 2, 1987
Pursell, Carl D.RMI2ndJanuary 30, 1985January 2, 1987
Wortley, GeorgeRNY27thJanuary 30, 1985January 2, 1987
MemberPartyStateDistrictBegan AssignmentEnded Assignment
Dixon, Julian C. DCA28thFebruary 19, 1987January 2, 1989
Fazio, Victor H.DCA4thFebruary 19, 1987January 2, 1989
Dwyer, Bernard J.DNJ6thFebruary 19, 1987January 2, 1989
Mollohan, Alan B.DWV1stFebruary 19, 1987January 2, 1989
Gaydos, Joseph M.DPA20thFebruary 19, 1987January 2, 1989
Atkins, Chester G.DMA5thFebruary 19, 1987January 2, 1989
Spence, Floyd RSC2ndJanuary 21, 1987June 1, 1988
Myers, John T.RIN7thJanuary 21, 1987January 2, 1989
Hansen, James V.RUT1stJanuary 21, 1987January 2, 1989
Pashayan, Charles S. Jr. RCA17thJanuary 21, 1987January 2, 1989
Petri, Thomas E.RWI6thJanuary 21, 1987January 2, 1989
Craig, Larry E.RID1stJanuary 21, 1987January 2, 1989
Brown, HankRCO4thJune 2, 1988January 2, 1989
Dixon, Julian C.DCA29thJanuary 3, 1989January 2, 1991
Fazio, Victor H.DCA4thJanuary 3, 1989January 2, 1991
Dwyer, Bernard J.DCA29thJanuary 3, 1989January 2, 1991
Mollohan, Alan B.DNJ6thJanuary 3, 1989January 2, 1991
Gaydos, Joseph M.DWV1stJanuary 3, 1989January 2, 1991
Atkins, Chester G.DPA20thJanuary 3, 1989January 2, 1991
Stokes, LouisbDOH21stSeptember 13, 1989July 26, 1990
Myers, John T.RIN7thJanuary 3, 1989January 2, 1991
Hansen, James V.RUT1stJanuary 3, 1989January 2, 1991
Pashayan, Charles S. Jr.RCA17thJanuary 3, 1989January 2, 1991
Petri, Thomas E.RWI6thJanuary 3, 1989January 2, 1991
Craig, Larry E.RID1stJanuary 3, 1989January 2, 1991
Grandy, FredRIA6thJanuary 3, 1989January 2, 1991
MemberPartyStateDistrictBegan AssignmentEnded Assignment
Stokes, LouisDOH21stFebruary 6, 1991January 2, 1993
Ackerman, Gary L.DNY7thFebruary 6, 1991July 4, 1992
Darden, George (Buddy)DGA7thFebruary 6, 1991July 4, 1992
Cardin, Benjamin L.DMD3rd February 6, 1991January 2, 1993
Pelosi, NancyDCA5thFebruary 6, 1991January 2, 1993
McDermott, JimDWA7thFebruary 6, 1991January 2, 1993
Mfume, KweisicDMD7thOctober 9, 1991January 2, 1993
Hansen, James V.RUT1stFebruary 6, 1991January 2, 1993
Grandy, FredRIA6thFebruary 6, 1991January 2, 1993
Johnson, NancyRCT6thFebruary 6, 1991January 2, 1993
Bunning, JimRKY4thFebruary 6, 1991January 2, 1993
Kyl, Jon L.RAZ4thFebruary 6, 1991January 2, 1993
Goss, Porter J.RFL13thFebruary 6, 1991January 2, 1993
Hobson, David L.ROH7thFebruary 6, 1991January 2, 1993
McDermott, JimDWA7thFebruary 4, 1993January 2, 1995
Darden, George (Buddy)DGA7thFebruary 4, 1993January 2, 1995
Cardin, Benjamim L.DMD3rdFebruary 4, 1993January 2, 1995
Nancy, PelosiDCA5thFebruary 4, 1993January 2, 1995
Mfume, KweisiDMD7thFebruary 4, 1993January 2, 1995
Borski, Robert A.DPA3rdFebruary 4, 1993January 2, 1995
Sawyer, Thomas C.DOH14thFebruary 4, 1993January 2, 1995
Grandy, FredRIA6thJanuary 5, 1993January 2, 1995
Johnson, Nancy L.RCT6thJanuary 5, 1993January 2, 1995
Bunning, JimRKY4thJanuary 5, 1993January 2, 1995
Kyl, Jon L.RAZ4thJanuary 5, 1993January 2, 1995
Goss, Porter J.RFL13thJanuary 5, 1993January 2, 1995
Hobson, David L.ROH7thJanuary 5, 1993January 2, 1995
MemberPartyStateDistrictBegan AssignmentEnded Assignment
Schiff, StevenRNY1stFebruary 4, 1993January 2, 1995
Johnson, Nancy L.RCT6thJanuary 20, 1995January 21, 1997
Bunning, JimRKY4thJanuary 20, 1995January 9, 1997
Goss, Porter J.RFL13thJanuary 20, 1995January 21, 1997
Hobson, David L.ROH7thJanuary 20, 1995January 15, 1997
Schiff, StevenRNM1stJanuary 20, 1995January 21, 1997
Smith, Lamar S.eRTX21stJanuary 9, 1997January 21, 1997
McDermott, JimfDWA7thJanuary 20, 1995January 14, 1997
Cardin, Benjamin L.DMD3rdJanuary 20, 1995January 21, 1997
Pelosi, NancyDCA5thJanuary 20, 1995January 21, 1997
Borski, Robert A.DPA3rdJanuary 20, 1995January 21, 1997
Sawyer, Thomas C.DOH 14thJanuary 20, 1995January 21, 1997
Hansen, James V.RUT1stJanuary 9, 1997January 2, 1999
Smith, Lamar S.RTX21stSeptember 29, 1997January 2, 1999
Hefley, JoelRCO5thSeptember 29, 1997January 2, 1999
Goodlatte, RobertRVA6thSeptember 29, 1997January 2, 1999
Knollenberg, JoeRMI11thSeptember 29, 1997January 2, 1999
Berman, Howard L.DCA26thFebruary 10, 1997January 2, 1999
Sabo, Martin O.DMN5thSeptember 29, 1997January 2, 1999
Pastor, Ed D AZ2ndSeptember 29, 1997January 2, 1999
Fattah, ChakaDPA2ndSeptember 29, 1997January 2, 1999
Lofgren, ZoeDCA16thSeptember 29, 1997January 2, 1999
Smith, Lamar S.RTX21stJanuary 6, 1999January 2, 2001
Hefley, JoelRCO5thJanuary 19, 1999January 2, 2001
Knollenberg, JoeRMI11thJanuary 19, 1999January 2, 2001
Portman, Robert J.ROH2nd January 19, 1999January 2, 2001
MemberPartyStateDistrictBegan AssignmentEnded Assignment
Camp, DaveRMI4thJanuary 19, 1999January 2, 2001
Berman, Howard L.DCA26thJanuary 6, 1999January 2, 2001
Sabo, Martin O.DMN5thJanuary 6, 1999January 2, 2001
Pastor, Ed D AZ2ndJanuary 6, 1999January 2, 2001
Fattah, ChakaDPA2ndJanuary 6, 1999January 2, 2001
Lofgren, ZoeDCA16thJanuary 6, 1999January 2, 2001
Hefley, JoelRCO5thJanuary 20, 2001 January 2, 2003
Portman, Robert J.ROH2ndMarch 6, 2001July 11, 2001
Hastings, DocRWA4thMarch 6, 2001January 2, 2003
Hutchison, AsaRAR3rdMarch 6, 2001August 6, 2001
Biggert, Judy RIL13thMarch 6, 2001January 2, 2003
Hulshof, KennyRMO9thJuly 11, 2001January 2, 2003
LaTourette, SteveROH19thOctober 10, 2001January 2, 2003
Berman, HowardDCA26thJanuary 20, 2001January 2, 2003
Sabo, MartinDMN5thMarch 6, 2001August 1, 2001
Pastor, EdDAZ2ndMarch 6, 2001 January 2, 2003
Lofgren, ZoeDCA16thMarch 6, 2001January 2, 2003
Jones, Stephanie TubbsDOH11thMarch 14, 2001January 2, 2003
Green, GeneDTX29thJuly 11, 2001January 2, 2003
Hefley, JoelRCO5thJanuary 8, 2003 January 2, 2005
Hastings, DocRWA4thFebruary 11, 2003January 2, 2005
Biggert, JudyRIL13thFebruary 11, 2003January 2, 2005
Hulshof, KennyRMO9thFebruary 11, 2003January 2, 2005
LaTourette, SteveROH19thFebruary 11, 2003January 2, 2005
Berman, HowardDCA26thJanuary 8, 2003February 26, 2003
Mollohan, Alan B.DWV1st February 5, 2003January 2, 2005
Jones, Stephanie TubbsDOH11thMarch 6, 2003January 2, 2005
MemberPartyStateDistrictBegan AssignmentEnded Assignment
Green, GeneDTX29thMarch 6, 2003January 2, 2005
Roybal-Allard, LucilleD CA34th March 6, 2003January 2, 2005
Doyle, Michael F.D PA14th March 6, 2003January 2, 2005
Hastings, DocRWA4thFebruary 2, 2005January 2, 2007
Biggert, JudyRIL13thFebruary 2, 2005January 2, 2007
Smith, LamarRTX21st February 2, 2005January 2, 2007
Hart, MelissaRTX4thFebruary 2, 2005January 2, 2007
Cole, TomROK4thFebruary 2, 2005January 2, 2007
Mollohan, Alan B.DWV1st January 26, 2005April 25, 2006
Berman, HowardgDCA28thApril 26, 2006January 2, 2007
Jones, Stephanie TubbsDOH11thFebruary 9, 2005January 2, 2007
Green, GeneDTX29thFebruary 9, 2005January 2, 2007
Roybal-Allard, LucilleD CA34th February 9, 2005 January 2, 2007
Doyle, Michael F.D PA14th February 9, 2005January 2, 2007
Jones, Stephanie TubbshDOH1th January 4, 2007August 20, 2008
Green, GenehDTX29thFebruary 8, 2007-
Roybal-Allard, LucilleD CA34th February 8, 2007 -
Doyle, Michael F.D PA14th February 8, 2007-
Delahunt, William D. DMA10th February 8, 2008-
Scott, Robert C. “Bobby”DVA3rdSeptember 11, 2008-
Hastings, DocRWA4thJanuary 4, 2007-
Bonner, JoRAL1st February 12, 2007-
Barrett, J. GreshamRSC3rd February 12, 2007-
Kline, John RMN2nd February 12, 2007-
McCaul, Michael T.RTX10th February 12, 2007-
a. Representative At Large, i.e. the state’s only Member of the House.
b. Appointed to serve in place of Representative Chester Atkins.
c. Appointed to serve in place of Representative Louis Stokes, and appointed to replacend
Representative Gary L. Ackerman in the 102 Congress on August 11, 1992.
d. Most of the Members of the Committee from the 104th Congress were appointed to the Selectth
Committee on Ethics in the 105 Congress, which existed from January 7, 1997, to January 21,
1997. This select committee was established to resolve the Statement of Alleged Violationsth
issued in the 104 Congress by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct against the
Speaker of the House. This select committee expired on January 21, 1997, with the House
approving a reprimand against the Speaker.
e. Appointed to the Select Committee on Ethics to complete the investigation begun by the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct.
f. Representative Jim McDermott was briefly replaced on the committee (July 23, 1996-July 24, 1996)
by Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) during a committee inquiry involving Representative
McDermott.
g. Representative Howard Berman was appointed as the ranking member of the committee after
Representative Alan Mollohan resigned from the committee.
h. Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones died on August 20, 2008, and Representative Gene Green
is serving as acting chairman for the remainder of the 110th Congress.