The Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction

Senate Select Committee on Ethics:
A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Updated March 26, 2008
Mildred L. Amer
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

Senate Select Committee on Ethics:
A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction
Summary
This report provides a brief history of the creation, evolution, activities, and
membership of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. First established in 1964 as
the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, it was renamed the Select
Committee on Ethics in 1977 when its jurisdiction and procedures were expanded to
help implement revisions to the Senate Code of Official Conduct.
This six-member, bipartisan committee investigates complaints and allegations
of improper conduct and violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and
recommends, when appropriate, disciplinary action against Senators and staff. It also
suggests rules or regulations and renders advisory opinions to insure appropriate
Senate standards and conduct; and regulates the use of the franking privilege in the
Senate, investigates unauthorized disclosures of intelligence information, administers
the Senate financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act, and
regulates the disposition of gifts from foreign governments received by Members,
officers, and employees of the Senate.
Since 1964, committee public statements and official documents, as well as
information released by Senators who were the subject of committee action, indicate
that the committee has considered allegations involving at least 38 Senators, all but
three investigations occurring after 1977. Two Senators resigned before expected
expulsion (one for a bribery conviction and the other because of charges of sexual
misconduct and alterations to subpoenaed documents); one Senator was censured;
and two were denounced (a form of censure) by the full Senate for financial
misconduct. One Senator was “severely admonished” by the committee for the
acceptance of and failure to disclose prohibited gifts; one was rebuked by the
committee for improper acceptance of gifts; and one involved in the “Keating Five”
case was reprimanded by the committee. The other four Senators in the latter case
were criticized in written statements by the committee for showing poor judgement
and giving the appearance of acting improperly. In some of the 38 cases, complaints
were dismissed or no disciplinary or official action was reported to be taken by the
committee.
This report will be updated as necessary. For additional information, please see
CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of the Congressional Rules of Conduct: An
Historical Overview, by Mildred Amer.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Committee Evolution and Background.................................4
Creation of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct........4
Creation of the Select Committee on Ethics.....................7
Jurisdiction .......................................................7
The Senate Code of Conduct.........................................9
First Code of Official Conduct...............................9
1977 Revisions...........................................10
1989 and 1991 Revisions...................................11
1995 Revisions...........................................12
2006 Action.............................................12
2007 Action.............................................12
Procedural Reform................................................13
1980 Actions/Senate Select Committee On Ethics Self Evaluation..13
1993 Actions/Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress....14
1993-1994 Senate Ethics Study Commission...................15
1999 Senate Select Committee on Ethics Procedural Changes......16
Proposed Changes to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics...............17
List of Tables
Appendix A. Members of the Senate Select Committee
on Standards and Conduct, 89^th-94^th Congresses (1965-1977)..........19
Appendix B. Members of the Senate Select Committee
On Ethics, 95^th -110^th Congresses (1977-2008)......................21

Senate Select Committee on
Ethics: A Brief History of Its
Evolution and Jurisdiction
Introduction
The U.S. Senate first established an ethics committee on July 24, 1964.¹
Initially known as the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, it was renamed
the Select Committee on Ethics in February 1977 following Senate-wide committee
reorganization.² Senate rules delegate to the committee the authority to investigate
allegations of wrongdoing by Senators and staff, adjudicate evidence of misconduct
and recommend penalties when appropriate, and provide advice on actions
permissible under the Senate rules of conduct.³
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution, states in part, “Each House
may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.”
The Senate Ethics Committee is authorized to “(1) receive complaints and
investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate,
violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and violations
of rules and regulations of the Senate, relating to the conduct of individuals in the
performance of their duties as Members of the Senate, or as officers or employees of
the Senate, and to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions with respect
thereto; (2) recommend, when appropriate, disciplinary action against Members and
staff; (3) recommend rules or regulations necessary to insure appropriate Senate
standards and conduct; (4) report violations of any law to the proper Federal and
State authorities; (5) regulate the use of the franking privilege in the Senate; (6)
investigate unauthorized disclosures of intelligence information; (7) implement the
Senate public financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act; (8)
regulate the receipt and disposition of gifts from foreign governments received by
Members, officers, and employees of the Senate; (9) render advisory opinions on the
application of Senate rules and laws to Members, officers, and employees; (10) for
complaints filed under the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 respecting

¹ “Proposed Amendment of Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate Relative to the
Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and Administration,” Congressional Record, vol.

10, July 24, 1964, pp. 16929-16940.

² “Committee System Reorganization,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, Feb. 4, 1977, pp.

660-3699.

³ U.S. Congress, Senate, Senate Manual Containing the Standing Rules, Orders, Laws, and
Resolutions Affecting the Business of the United States Senate, 107^th Cong., 1^st sess., S. Doc.

107-1 (Washington, GPO, 2002), pp. 108-118 (Standing Order 80).

conduct occurring prior to January 23, 1996, review, upon request, any decision of
the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices;”⁴ (11) “develop and implement
programs for Members, officers, and employees to educate them about standards of
conduct applicable in the performance of their official duties;”⁵ (12) “conduct
ongoing ethics training and awareness programs for Members of the Senate and
Senate staff;”⁶ and (13) issue an annual report on the number of alleged violations of
Senate rules received from any source, including the number raised by a Senator or
staff of the committee, and including the number of allegations dismissed or on
which the committee took the specific actions.⁷
Much of the business of the ethics committee is advisory, helping Senators and
staff abide by the Senate Code of Official Conduct.⁸ The majority of the committee’s
work is not publicized because of its desire to grant “due process” to individuals
subject to allegations.
The committee may investigate allegations brought by Senators and Senate staff
as well as those brought against a Senator or Senate staff member by an individual
or group, or it may initiate an inquiry on its own. It has formal procedures for the
filing of complaints and does not publicize allegations that, in its judgment, do not
merit full review. After an investigative process, the committee may recommend to
the Senate appropriate sanctions against a Senator, including censure, expulsion,
party discipline, and financial restitution. In addition, effective in 1999, the
committee may issue a reprimand or assess financial reimbursement without full
Senate approval.⁹ In the case of an officer or employee, the committee may
recommend dismissal, suspension, and payment of restitution.
Since its creation in 1964, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has
considered allegations involving approximately 38 Senators.¹⁰ All but three of the

⁴ U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Senate Ethics Manual, 108^th Cong., 1^st
sess., S.Pub. 108-1 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 4.
⁵ Ibid, p. 358, and “Official Conduct Amendments of 1977,” (S.Res. 338, 88^th Congress as
amended by S.Res. 110, 95^th Congress ), Congressional Record, vol. 123, Apr. 1, 1977, pp.

10044-10068. See also various editions of the Congressional Record for Mar. 17- 31, 1977,

for the entire debate on the provisions of S.Res. 110.
⁶ P.L. 110-81,121 Stat. 773, The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
⁷ P.L. 110-81,121 Stat. 773-7744, The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of

2007.

⁸ Useful information about the committee’s activities, the Senate Code of Conduct, and
interpretative rulings can be found on the committee’s website at [http://ethics.senate.gov].
⁹ “Senate Ethics Procedure Reform Resolution of 1999,” Congressional Record, vol. 145,
Nov. 5, 1999, pp. 28834-28843.
¹⁰ This number is derived from those Senators formally disciplined by the full Senate or by
the committee only; from information released by the committee through press releases and
committee documents; or from information released by those Senators who were under
investigation but not subject to a committee or Senate punishment. There is not a single
source for documenting all of the cases considered by the Senate Select Committee on
(continued...)

committee’s actions occurred after 1977.¹¹ As a result of committee investigations,
two Senators resigned before expected expulsion (one for a bribery conviction and
the other because of charges of sexual misconduct and altering documents
subpoenaed by the committee); one Senator was “censured”; and two were
“denounced” by the Senate (a form of censure) for financial misconduct. One Senator
was “rebuked” by the committee for improper acceptance of gifts; one Senator was
“severely admonished” by the committee for the acceptance of and failure to disclose
prohibited gifts; and one Senator was “admonished” by the committee for “conduct
reflecting discreditably on the Senate,” including using campaign funds for legal
expenses without the required prior approval of the Senate Select Committee on
Ethics.¹² One Senator, involved in the case known as the “Keating Five,” was
“reprimanded” by the committee. The other four Senators in the latter case were
criticized in written statements from the committee for showing poor judgement and
giving the appearance of acting improperly.¹³ In some of the 38 cases, complaints
were dismissed for lack of merit or with no disciplinary action reported to be taken
by the committee after an investigation.¹⁴
Wide-ranging inquiries and investigations involving more than one Senator and
announced by the Ethics Committee dealt with special car-leasing arrangements for
Senators, the introduction of legislation favorable to Chinese seamen, alleged illegal
campaign contributions from the Gulf Oil Company, alleged Korean influence
peddling, the unauthorized disclosure of classified information about the Senate’s

¹⁰ (...continued)
Ethics. Good resources include Stephen C. Rodberds, “Do Congressional Ethics Committees
Matter? U.S. Senate Ethics Cases, 1789-2000,” in Public Integrity, vol. 6, Winter 2003-04,^nd
pp. 25-38; “Congressional Ethics Cases, 1976-1980,” in Congressional Ethics, 2 ed.
(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1980), pp. 21-35; “Seating and Disciplining^th
Members,” in Guide to Congress, 5 ed.. vol. II (Washington: Congressional Quarterly,

2000), pp. 915-988, supplemented by various editions of Congress and the Nation,

published annually by Congressional Quarterly Inc.; Mary Ann Noyer, Catalogue of
Congressional Ethics Cases,1796-1992 (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1995); and
U.S. Senate, Senate, Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases, 1793-1990, prepared by Anne^rd^st
Butler and Wendy Wolff, 103 Cong., 1 sess, S. Doc. 103-33 (Washington: GPO, 1995),
pp. 409-442 [http://senate.gov/reference/reference_item/election_book.htm].
¹¹ The committee sometimes acts on complaints that do not reach a formal investigation
stage. The committee usually does not acknowledge such cases even if they are reported in
the press. Therefore, it is difficult to obtain a precise number of “cases” considered by the
committee. U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Ethics, “Statement By Senators Boxer and
Cornyn, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee,” press release, Mar. 5,

2007, [http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/pr030507.pdf].

¹² See, for example, U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Ethics, “Public Letter of
Admonition,” press release, Feb. 13, 2008, [http://ethics.senate.gov/].
¹³ This case (1989-1991) involved the actions of the five Senators suspected of doing favors
for the owner of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, who was a campaign
contributor.
¹⁴ As mentioned earlier, the committee sometimes has disciplined Senators directly without
recommending that the Senate take official action. The committee “punishments” have
included a “reprimand,” an “admonishment,” and a “rebuke.”

consideration of the Panama Canal Treaty, and several discrimination issues.¹⁵ No
disciplinary action was taken in any of those cases.
Committee Evolution and Background
Creation of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Prior
to 1964, there were no congressional ethics committees or formal rules governing the
conduct of Members, officers, and employees of either house of Congress; nor was
there a consistent approach to the investigation of alleged misconduct. When
allegations were investigated, the investigation was usually done by a special or
select committee created for that purpose. Sometimes, however, allegations were
considered by the House or Senate without prior committee action.
Traditionally, the Senate and the House of Representatives have exercised their
powers of self discipline with caution. According to Senate Historian Richard
Baker, “For nearly two centuries, a simple and informal code of behavior existed.
Prevailing norms of general decency served as the chief determinants of proper
legislative conduct.”¹⁶ Baker further noted that for most of its history, “Congress has
chosen to deal, on a case-by-case basis, only with the most obvious acts of
wrongdoing, those clearly ‘inconsistent with the trust and duty of a member.’”¹⁷
Increasing attention to congressional ethics began in the 1940s, when concern
was first expressed about the lack of financial disclosure requirements for the three
branches of government. There was also public criticism about Members of
Congress supplementing their salaries with income from speeches and other outside
activities. Senator Wayne Morse, the first Member to introduce public financial
disclosure legislation, defended Members’ right to earn outside income, but believed
that the American people were entitled to know about their sources of income.¹⁸
Senator Morse’s 1946 resolution (S.Res. 306) would have required Senators to file
annual public financial disclosure reports. It was predicated “upon the very sound
philosophical principle enunciated by Plutarch that [Members of Congress just as]
Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”¹⁹
Senator Morse continued to introduce his measure through the 1960s, ultimately
expanding it to include all three branches of government, and gaining support from

¹⁵ See, for example, “Congressional Ethics Cases, 1976-1980,” in Congressional Ethics, 2^nd
ed. (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1980), pp. 21-47.
¹⁶ Richard Baker, “The History of Congressional Ethics,” in Bruce Jennings and Daniel
Callahan, eds., Representation and Responsibility: Exploring Legislative Ethics (New York:
Plenum Press, 1985), p. 4. (Hereafter cited as Baker, “The History of Congressional
Ethics.”)
¹⁷ Ibid., p. 3.
¹⁸ Senator Wayne Morse, “Reports by Senators on Sources of Outside Income,” remarks in
the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 92, July 23, 1946, p. 9741.
¹⁹ Ibid.

Senators Paul Douglas and Clifford Case.²⁰ During the 1950s and early 1960s, there
were various unsuccessful attempts to create joint or select congressional committees
to adopt and monitor codes of official conduct for Members and employees of the
Senate.
Momentum for reform grew after Robert G. (Bobby) Baker, Secretary to the
Senate Democratic Majority, resigned from his job in October 1963, following
allegations that he had misused his official position for personal financial gain.²¹ For
the next year and a half, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee held
hearings to investigate the business interests and activities of Senate officials and
employees in order to ascertain what, if any, conflicts of interest or other
improprieties existed and whether any additional laws or regulations were needed.²²
The committee recognized that serious allegations had been made against a former
employee, and that no specific rules or regulations governed the duties and scope of
activities of Members, officers, or employees of the Senate.
In its first report, the Senate Rules Committee characterized many of Baker’s
outside activities as being in conflict with his official duties and made several
recommendations, including adoption of public financial disclosure rules and other
guidelines for Senate employees.²³
Subsequently, as part of its conclusion of the Baker case, the Rules Committee
held additional hearings on proposals advocating a code of ethics in conjunction with
a pending pay raise, the creation of a joint congressional ethics committee to write
an ethics code, and the adoption of various rules requiring public disclosure of
personal finances by Senators and staff and the disclosure of ex parte
communications.²⁴ Additions to the Senate rules — calling for public financial
disclosure reports and more controls on staff involvement in Senate campaign funds
— were then introduced to implement the committee’s recommendations.²⁵

²⁰ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Financial or Business
Interests of Officers or Employees of the Senate, hearings pursuant to S.Res. 212, part 23,^th^st^nd

88 Cong., 1 and 2 sess., May 27, 1964 (Washington: GPO, 1964), pp. 2021-2027.

²¹ Jack Landau, “Baker Resigns Post As Probe Widens,” The Washington Post, Oct. 8, 1963,
pp. A1, A5.
²² U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Financial or Business
Interests of Officers or Employees of the Senate, hearings pursuant to S.Res. 212, parts 1-27,^th^st^nd

88 Cong., 1 and 2 sess., 1963-1964 (Washington: GPO, 1964); and U.S. Congress,

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Construction of the District of Columbia
Stadium, and Matters Related Thereto, hearings pursuant to S.Res. 212 and S.Res. 367, parts^th^nd^th^st

1-13, 88 Cong., 2 sess., and 89 Cong., 1 sess., 1964-1965 (Washington: GPO, 1964-

1965).

²³ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Financial or Business
Interests of Officers and Employees of the Senate, report pursuant to S.Res. 212, 88^th Cong.,^nd

2 sess., S.Rept. 88-1175 (Washington: GPO, 1964).

²⁴ Ibid.
²⁵ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Proposed Rules XLI and
(continued...)

In the report on the proposed additions to Senate rules, Senator John Sherman
Cooper, a member of the Rules Committee, discussed the committee’s rejection of
his proposal for the establishment of a select committee on standards and conduct.²⁶
The proposed committee would have been empowered to receive and investigate
complaints of unethical activity, as well as to propose rules and make
recommendations to the Senate on disciplinary action.
To implement the proposed new Senate rules, the Committee on Rules and
Administration reported a measure granting itself authority to investigate infractions
of all Senate rules and to recommend disciplinary action.²⁷ On July 24, 1964, during
debate on the proposed new ethics rules (S.Res. 337), and a resolution (S.Res. 338)
to give the Rules Committee additional authority, the Senate adopted a substitute
proposal by Senator Cooper to establish a permanent, bipartisan Senate Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct.²⁸ The Senate chose to create a bipartisan
ethics committee instead of granting the Rules Committee disciplinary authority, in
part, because of the difficulties in the Baker investigation.
The new select committee was similar to the one Senator Cooper had advocated
during several stages of the Bobby Baker investigation. The Senator had declared
that, “one of the greatest duties of such a committee would be to have the judgement
to know what it should investigate and what it should not.”²⁹ Moreover, with the
creation of this committee, an internal disciplinary body was established in Congress
for the first time on a continuing basis.
The six members of the new committee were not appointed until a year later, in
July 1965, however, because of the Senate leadership’s desire to wait until the Rules
Committee had completed the Baker investigation.³⁰ In October 1965, the committee
elected a chairman and vice chairman, appointed its first staff, and began developing
standards of conduct for the Senate.³¹

²⁵ (...continued)
XLII to the Standing Rules of the Senate, report to accompany S.Res. 337, 88^th Cong., 2^nd
sess., S.Rept. 88-1125 (Washington: GPO, 1964).
²⁶ Ibid., p. 13.
²⁷ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Amending Rule XXV of
the Standing Rules of the Senate Relative to the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and^th^nd
Administration, report to accompany S.Res. 338, 88 Cong., 2 sess., S.Rept. 88-1147
(Washington: GPO, 1964).
²⁸ “Proposed Amendment of Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate Relative to the
Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and Administration,” Congressional Record, vol.

110, July 24, 1964, pp. 16929-16940.

²⁹ Ibid., p. 16933.
³⁰ “Announcement of the Appointment of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct,”
Congressional Record, vol. 111, July 9, 1965, p. 16179.
³¹ Sen. John Stennis was elected chairman, and Sen. Wallace Bennett was elected vice
chairman, positions they held for 10 years.

Creation of the Select Committee on Ethics. Although the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct undertook several investigations from 1969
to 1977, it was sometimes characterized as “antiquated,” “do-little,” or as a “watch-
dog without teeth.”³² Moreover, the Senate ethics code, which the committee wrote³³
in 1968, was often viewed as ineffective.
In 1976, a select committee, created to study the Senate committee system,
recommended that the functions of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct³⁴
should be placed under the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. The Rules
Committee, however, rejected the idea and instead recommended establishment of
a newly constituted bipartisan ethics committee to demonstrate to the public the
“seriousness with which the Senate views congressional conduct.”³⁵ In response, the
permanent Select Committee on Ethics was created in 1977 to replace the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct.³⁶ Initially, membership on the new select
committee was limited to six years. Two years later, the six-year limitation was
removed.³⁷
Jurisdiction
When the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was created in 1964, it
was given the authority to (1) investigate allegations of improper conduct which may
reflect upon the Senate; (2) investigate violations of laws, rules, and regulations of
the Senate relating to the conduct of Members, officers, and employees in their
official duties; (3) recommend disciplinary action, when appropriate; and (4)

³² Quotes are found in Martha Angle, “Ethics Panel Called ‘Antiquated,’” The Washington
Star, Dec. 18, 1976, p. A11; Robert Sherrill, “We Can’t Depend on Congress to Keep
Congress Honest,” The New York Times Magazine, July 19, 1970, pp. 5-7, 13-14; and Jerry
Landauer, “Senate Ethics: Hear No Evil, See No Evil,” The Washington Star, Sept. 19,

1976, p. E3.

³³ Jack Anderson, “The Embarrassment of Clean Government,” The Washington Post, June
8, 1975, p. C7; James Gannon and Jerry Landauer, “Despite Sex Scandals, Self-Serving
Actions Are the Major Problem,” Wall Street Journal, June 15, 1976, pp. 1, 22; “A
Congressional Scandal” (editorial), The Washington Star, Sept. 23, 1976, p. A12; “Same Old
Club”(editorial), Federal Times, Oct. 4, 1976, p. 9; and Anthony Marro, “Congressional
Ethics and the Need for Basic Reform,” The New York Times, Jan. 30, 1977, p. E3..
³⁴ U.S. Congress, Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System,
First Report with Recommendations, 94^th Cong., 2^nd sess., S.Rept. 94-1395 (Washington:
GPO, 1976), pp. 95-96.
³⁵ U.S. Congress, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, Committee System
Reorganization Amendments of 1977, report to accompany S.Res. 4, 95^th Cong., 1^st sess.,
S.Rept. 95-1 (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 4-5.
³⁶ “Senate Committee Reorganization,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, Feb. 1, 1977, p.

2886.

³⁷ “Elimination of Certain Requirements for Membership on the Select Committee on
Ethics,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, Oct. 31, 1979, p. 30266.

recommend additional Senate rules to insure proper conduct.³⁸ The Select Committee
on Ethics assumed this authority as well as responsibility for enforcing and
interpreting the Senate Code of Official Conduct, which was adopted in 1968 and
substantially amended in 1977.³⁹
In 1973, Congress had passed legislation (P.L. 93-191) clarifying the proper use
of the franking privilege by Members of Congress and authorizing the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct to provide assistance and counsel to Senators
and staff on the use of the frank.⁴⁰
Subsequently, when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was created
in 1976, the ethics committee was given specific jurisdiction to investigate any
unauthorized disclosure of intelligence information by a Member, officer, or
employee of the Senate and to report to the Senate on any substantiated allegation.⁴¹
A year later, in August 1977, with the enactment of P.L. 95-105 (FY1978
Foreign Relations Authorization Act), which amended the Foreign Gifts and
Decorations Act of 1966, the recently renamed Select Committee on Ethics was
designated the “employing agency” for the Senate and authorized to issue regulations
governing the acceptance by Senators and staff of gifts, trips, and decorations from
foreign governments.⁴²
In August 1979, the Select Committee on Ethics was given responsibility for
administering the Senate public financial disclosure requirements contained in the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.⁴³
With the adoption of Title III ( Government Employee Rights Act of 1991) of
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Senate established the Office of Fair Employment
Practices to adjudicate discrimination complaints and gave the Select Committee on
Ethics jurisdiction to review, upon request, decisions of the office.⁴⁴ Subsequently,
in 1995, Congress approved the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), which

³⁸ S.Res. 338, adopted on July 24, 1964. See “Proposed Amendment of Rule XXV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate Relative to the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and
Administration,” Congressional Record, vol. 110, July 24, 1964, pp. 16929-16940.
³⁹ U.S. Congress, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, Committee System
Reorganization Amendments of 1977, report to accompany S.Res. 4, 95^th Cong., 1^st sess.,
S.Rept. 95-1 (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 4-5; “Official Conduct Amendments of 1977^th
(S.Res. 338, 88 Congress as amended by S.Res. 110),” Congressional Record, vol. 123,
Apr. 1, 1977, pp. 10044-10068. See also various editions of the Congressional Record for
Mar. 17- 31, 1977, for the entire debate on the provisions of S.Res. 110.
⁴⁰ P.L. 93-191; 87 Stat. 737.
⁴¹ “Proposed Standing Committee on Intelligence Activities,” Congressional Record, vol.

122, May 13, 1976, p. 13992.

⁴² P.L. 95-105; 91 Stat. 863.
⁴³ 5 U.S.C. app. Sec. 101-111.
⁴⁴ P.L. 102-166; 105 Stat. 1088-1090; and “Civil Rights Act of 1991,” Congressional
Record, vol. 137, Oct. 30, 1991, pp. 29018-29020.

applied 12 civil rights, labor, and other workplace laws to the legislative branch.⁴⁵
The CAA superceded the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, and established
a procedure outside the Senate for considering violations of these statutes.
Nevertheless, passage of the CAA did not affect the Senate Ethics Committee’s
separate and independent authority to discipline a Member, officer, or employee for
violating the Senate’s anti-discrimination rule (Senate Rule XLII) or any of the 12
st at ut es.⁴⁶
The Senate Code of Conduct
First Code of Official Conduct. When the members of the new Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct initially met in October 1965, one of their first
duties was to recommend rules of conduct for Members, officers, and employees of
the Senate. This work, however, was interrupted by the committee’s first disciplinary
case, which ultimately resulted in the June 1967 censure of a Senator for the
conversion of campaign funds to personal use.⁴⁷ The committee subsequently was
occupied by allegations against another Senator, although it continued to work
concurrently on a Senate code of conduct.⁴⁸
In March 1968, the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct reported a
resolution making four additions to the Standing Rules of the Senate, which were
adopted after several days of debate.⁴⁹ These were the first official Senate rules of
conduct for Members, officers, and employees.⁵⁰ The four areas covered by the rules

⁴⁵ P.L. 104-1; 109 Stat. 3-44. P.L. 104-1 originally applied 11 laws. In 1998, the CAA was
amended to include provisions of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act. P.L. 105-

339; 112 Stat. 3185-3186.

⁴⁶ U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Senate Ethics Manual,, 108^th Cong.,

1^st sess., S.Pub. 108-1 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 193.

⁴⁷ U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Standards of Conduct
for Members of the Senate, Officers and Employees of the Senate, report to accompany^th^nd
S.Res. 266, 90 Cong., 2 sess., S.Rept. 90-1015 (Washington: GPO, 1968), p. 3; and^th
“Seating and Disciplining Members,” in Guide to Congress, 5 ed., vol. II (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, 2000), pp. 930-931.
⁴⁸ U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Standards of Conduct
for Members of the Senate, Officers and Employees of the Senate, report to accompany^th^nd
S.Res. 266, 90 Cong., 2 sess., S.Rept. 90-1015 (Washington: GPO, 1968), p. 3; and
“Senate Ethics Committee,” in Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XXIII, 1967
(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1968), pp. 582-584.
⁴⁹ U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Standards of Conduct
for Members of the Senate, Officers and Employees of the Senate, report to accompany^th^nd
S.Res. 266, 90 Cong., 2 sess., S.Rept. 90-1015 (Washington: GPO, 1968); and “Senate
Standards of Conduct,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, Mar. 19, 1968, pp. 6941-6943,
6948-6960; Mar. 20, 1968, pp. 7129-7134, 7137-7154; Mar. 21, 1968, pp. 7249-7279; and
Mar. 22, 1968, pp. 7369-7383, 7388-7408.
⁵⁰ By the early 1960s, many Members of Congress had begun the practice of publishing in
(continued...)

changes were (1) outside employment of officers and employees, (2) raising and
permissible uses of campaign funds, (3) political fund-raising activities of Senate
staff, and (4) annual financial disclosures by senatorial candidates as well as
Members, officers, and designated employees of the Senate.⁵¹ With the exceptions
of gifts in excess of $50 and honoraria in excess of $300, the information in the
disclosure reports was to be kept confidential and not available to the public.
The preamble to the then-new rules, which is still in effect and appears in the
nonstatutory Standing Orders of the Senate (Senate Manual, Standing Order No. 87),
declared the following to be the policy of the Senate:
Resolved, It is the policy of the Senate that —
(a) The ideal concept of public trust, expressed by the words, ‘A public
office is a public trust,’ signifies that the officer has been entrusted with public
power by the people; that the officer holds this power in trust to be used only for
their benefit and never for the benefit of himself or of a few; and that the officer
must never conduct his own affairs so as to infringe on the public interest. All
official conduct of Members of the Senate should be guided by this paramount
concept of public office.
(b) These rules, as the written expression of certain standards of conduct,
complement the body of unwritten but generally accepted standards that continue
to apply to the Senate.
1977 Revisions.On April 1, 1977, the Senate Code of Official Conduct was
revised and amended, and the procedures and duties of the Select Committee on
Ethics were expanded.⁵² Adoption of S.Res. 110 followed efforts to restore loss of
public confidence affecting the government at the time. Three months earlier, the
Special Committee on Official Conduct had been established “to recommend a code⁵³
of conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the Senate.” The Watergate
scandal and its repercussions had affected the entire government; a number of polls
and studies at the time indicated that there had been a decline in public confidence

⁵⁰ (...continued)
the Congressional Record and other places disclosures about their personal finances.
Former Sen. Stephen Young claimed that he was the first Member of Congress to disclose
to the public his entire financial assets, holdings, and earnings (1959). He also established
a rule fixing the valuation of $5.00 as the maximum value for any gift he would receive.
Former Sen. Paul Douglas had a rule for himself and his staff of returning any gift in excess
of the figure of $2.50. See Sen. Stephen Young,“Senatorial Standards of Conduct,”
Congressional Record, vol. 114, Mar. 19, 1968, pp. 6941-6943.
⁵¹ This was the first time that Senators, Senate staff, and Senate candidates were required
to file annual financial disclosures reports.
⁵² “Official Conduct Amendments of 1977 (S.Res. 110),” Congressional Record, vol. 123,
Apr. 1, 1977, pp. 10044-10068. See also various editions of the Congressional Record for
Mar. 17- 31, 1977, for the entire debate on the provisions of S.Res. 110.
⁵³ Robert C. Byrd, “Establishment of Special Committee to Propose a Code of Conduct,”
Congressional Record, vol. 123, Jan. 18, 1977, pp. 1361-1363; and U.S. Congress, Senate
Special Committee on Official Conduct, Senate Code of Official Conduct, report to^th^st
accompany S.Res. 110, 95 Cong., 1 sess., S.Rept. 95-49 (Washington: GPO, 1977).

in all three branches of the government, particularly Congress. Several studies had
recommended limitations on outside earned income, more explicit standards of
senatorial conduct, and linking tougher standards to a proposed 1977 congressional
pay raise.⁵⁴
Title I of S.Res. 110 contained amendments to the Senate Code of Official
Conduct adopted in 1968. Title II amended S.Res. 338, the 1964 resolution that
created the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct and constituted the basic
charter of the newly created Select Committee on Ethics.
Included in Title I were the first public financial disclosure requirements for
Members, officers, and employees of the Senate, as well as the first limits on gifts,
outside earnings, the franking privilege, the use of the radio and television studios,
unofficial office accounts, and lame-duck foreign travel. There was also a provision
prohibiting discrimination in staff employment.
Title II provided the new Select Committee on Ethics with the authority to issue
regulations to implement the revised Code of Official Conduct and to issue
interpretative rulings to clarify its meaning and applicability. The committee was
also mandated to compile advisory opinions and rulings and to make them available
periodically to Senators and staff.⁵⁵ Title II of S.Res. 110 also:
(1)preserved for the ethics committee the discretion to initiate investigations;
(2)set forth the procedures for the receipt and processing of sworn complaints;
(3)spelled out the requirement that an affirmative vote of four committee
members was necessary for any report, recommendation, advisory opinion,
or investigation;
(4)required the committee to adopt written rules for investigations;
(5)provided for the optional disqualification of committee members in any
investigations;
(6)stipulated that outside counsel must be hired for investigations unless the
committee specifically decides not to use such counsel;
(7)clarified that no investigation could be made of any alleged violation
which was not considered a violation at the time it was alleged to have
occurred; and
(8)enumerated specific sanctions that the committee could recommend in
calling upon the Senate to take disciplinary action.
1989 and 1991 Revisions. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and the FY1992
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act further amended the Senate Code of Official
Conduct by changing the restrictions on the acceptance of gifts and travel by
Members, officers, and employees of the Senate; banning honoraria; and limiting

⁵⁴ “House, Senate Adopt New Codes of Ethics,” in Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol.
XXXIII, 1977 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1977), pp. 763-781.
⁵⁵ The committee has compiled its interpretative rulings in U.S. Congress, Senate Select
Committee on Ethics, Senate Ethics Manual, 108^th Cong., 1^st sess., S.Pub. 108-1
(Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 197-308. See also [http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/
pdffiles/manual.pdf]

other outside earned income of Senators, officers, and designated employees.⁵⁶ The
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act also further restricted the source of funds for
the conduct of officially connected duties.
1995 Revisions. On July 28, 1995, the Senate amended its gift rule (Rule
XXXV) by adopting S.Res. 158, which placed stricter limits on the acceptance of⁵⁷
gifts and travel by Senators and staff. Rule XXXV, which is still applicable,
banned gifts of $50 or more and placed an annual $100 limit on gifts from any one
source. Gifts and meals valued at less than $10 did not have to be aggregated toward
the annual limit. Also, lobbyists were banned from contributing to legal defense
funds established for Members and congressional staff, and from contributing to any
charitable foundations they have established. Under Rule XXXV, lobbyists also
could not provide “necessary expenses” for Members’ or officers’ travel in
conjunction with an “officially connected” trip. Also banned was free travel to
events that are substantially recreational.
2006 Action. During the 109^th Congress, the Senate adopted S. 2349, the
Legislative and Lobbying Transparency Accountability Act of 2006.⁵⁸ When the bill
was taken up by the House, that chamber struck all but the enacting clause and
inserted provisions of a related measure. The Senate requested a conference and
appointed conferees, but the House took no additional action. The Senate-passed
measure contained provisions (1) enhancing disclosures by lobbyists and adding
more requirements for former Members and staff who become lobbyists, (2) banning
most gifs to Senators and staff, (3) strengthening the rules for travel by Senators and
staff, and (4) mandating ethics training for Senators and staff.

2007 Action. In the first session of the 110^th Congress, Congress passed the⁵⁹

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. This act requires annual
activity reports from the Senate Select Committee on Ethics that show (1) the number
of alleged violations of Senate rules received from any source, including the number

⁵⁶ P.L 101-194; 103 Stat. 1760-1763, 1778-1783 (Nov. 30, 1989); and P.L.102-90, 105 Stat.

469-470 (Aug. 14, 1991).

⁵⁷ “Congressional Gift Reform,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, July 28, 1995, pp. 20939-

20952.

⁵⁸ “Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act,” Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 152, Mar. 29, 2006, pp. S2490-S2511.
⁵⁹ P.L. 110-81; 121 Stat. 735-776, Sept. 14, 2007. For a complete discussion of this
measure, see CRS Report RL34166, Lobbying Law and Ethics Rules Changes in the 110^th
Congress, by Jack Maskell. This measure was initially known as the Legislative
Transparency and Accountability Act. See “Legislative Transparency and Accountability
Act,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, Jan. 18, 2007, pp. S737-S746. See also
various editions of the Congressional Record for Jan. 9-12 and 16-17 for Senate debate on
this measure. In addition refer to U.S. Congress, House Committee on Judiciary, Honest^th^st
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, 110 Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 110-161, Part
I (Washington: GPO, 2007); “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007,”
Congressional Record, vol. 153, July 31, 2007, pp. H9192-H9210; and “Honest Leadership
and Open Government Act of 2207,” Congressional Record, vol. 153, Aug. 2, 2007, pp.
S10685-S10719 and S10723-S10724.

raised by a Senator or the staff of the committee; (2) a list by number and category
of alleged violations that were dismissed; (3) the number of alleged violations for
which the committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry, that resulted in an
adjudicatory review, or that were dismissed for lack of substantial merit; (4) the
number of private or public letters of admonition issued; (5) the number of matters
resulting in disciplinary sanctions; and (6) any other information deemed by the
committee to be appropriate to describe the previous year’s activities.⁶⁰ The first
report required by the new law was released in January 2008.⁶¹
In addition, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (1) requires the
Select Committee on Ethics to conduct mandatory ethics training for Senators and
staff; (2) bans most gifts from lobbyists to Senators as well as to Senate officers and
employees; (3) restricts the acceptance of expenses from entities that employ
lobbyists for officially connected travel by Senators and Senate staff; (4) requires
Senators and staff to get prior approval from the Senate Select Committee on Ethics
for officially connected travel; (5) requires additional detail on officially connected
travel in reports estimating expenses received; (6) extends to two years from one the
lobbying ban on Senators who become lobbyists; (7) prohibits Senate staff who
become lobbyists from lobbying anyone in the Senate for one year after leaving
office; (8) eliminates Senate floor, parking, and gym privileges for Senators who
become lobbyists; (9) establishes conditions related to negotiations for future private
employment by Senators and senior staff; and (10) denies annuity payments for
Senate service to Senators convicted of certain crimes.
Other provisions in the act include wide-ranging lobbying disclosure reforms,
including quarterly, electronic filing by lobbyists with the Secretary of the Senate and
the Clerk of the House, and so-called “earmark” reform. A number of provisions in
the act apply to both the Senate and the House of Representatives.⁶²
Procedural Reform

1980 Actions/Senate Select Committee On Ethics Self Evaluation.

After the Senate adopted the Official Conduct Amendments of 1977 (its revised code
of conduct), many Senators complained both publicly and privately that the new code
was too restrictive and unrealistic.⁶³ During its first years, the newly created Select
Committee on Ethics worked on interpreting the new rules for the Senate. On
February 1, 1980, the Senate adopted S.Res. 109, which directed the Ethics
Committee to undertake a “comprehensive review of the Senate Code of Official

⁶⁰ P.L. 110-81, Sec. 554, 121 Stat., 773-774 (Sept. 14, 2007).
⁶¹ Sen. Barbara Boxer, “Annual Report for 2007—Select Committee on Ethics,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154, Jan. 31, 2008, pp. S538-S539.
⁶² P.L. 110-81; 121 Stat. 735-776 (Sept. 14, 2007).
⁶³ Official Conduct Amendments of 1979,” Congressional Record, vol. 126, Feb. 1, 1980,
pp. 1571-1579; and Lloyd Shearer, “The Ethics Code,” Parade Magazine, Oct. 2, 1977, p.

32.

Conduct and the provisions for its enforcement and implementation and for
investigation of allegations of improper conduct by Senators” and staff.⁶⁴
During the course of its review, the committee held hearings in November 1980,
where academicians, federal and state ethics officials, and Members testified.⁶⁵ The
committee sent questionnaires to Senators, and consulted the Hastings Center
Institute of Society, Ethics, and Life Sciences, which issued two reports on proposed
changes in the Senate Code of Official Conduct and its enforcement.⁶⁶ The
committee was granted several delays in making final recommendations, and it
ultimately never issued a report to the Senate.⁶⁷

1993 Actions/Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.^rd

During the 103 Congress (1993-1995), the Joint Committee on the Organization of
Congress studied the congressional ethics process. Congressional and legal scholars
and current and former Members of Congress testified during February 1993
hearings.⁶⁸ Suggestions encompassed revamping the entire ethics system, including
separating into two subcommittees the investigative and adjudicatory functions of the
committee during investigations (a process already in place in the House); using
outside panels of retired Members, former jurists, or citizens to assist in disciplinary
cases; developing a written ethics manual; increasing ethics training and education;
and establishing a “statute of limitations” for Senate investigations similar to one
already in place in the House.
In their December 1993 final report, the Senate members of the joint committee
recommended that action on specific proposals for reforming the Senate ethics
process be deferred until the then-new Senate Ethics Study Commission, established

⁶⁴ Congressional Record, vol. 126, Feb. 1, 1980, pp. 1571-1579.
⁶⁵ U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Revising the Senate Code of Official
Conduct Pursuant to Senate Resolution 109, hearings, 96^th Cong., 2^nd sess., Nov. 18-19,

1980 (Washington: GPO, 1981).

⁶⁶ The Hastings Center, Revising the United States Senate Code of Ethics (Hastings-on-
Hudson, NY: The Hastings Center, 1981); and The Hastings Center, The Ethics of
Legislative Life (Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: The Hastings Center, 1985).
⁶⁷ Irwin B. Arieff, “Senate Ethics Committee Delays Code Revisions,” Congressional
Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 39, Apr. 4, 1981, pp. 604-605; and Irwin Arieff, “Code
Action Delayed” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 39, May 9, 1981, p. 824.
⁶⁸ U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Background Materials:
Supplemental Information Provided to Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization^rd^st
of Congress, S.Prt. 103-55, 103 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 115-165;
U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Ethics Process:
Testimony of Former Senator Abraham Ribicoff and a Panel of Academic Experts, hearings,^rd^st
103 Cong., 1 sess., Feb. 16, 1993 (Washington: GPO, 1993); and U.S. Congress, Joint
Committee on the Organization of Congress, Ethics Process: Testimony of Hon. Louis^rd^st
Stokes, Hon. James Hansen, and a Panel of Academic Experts, hearings, 103 Cong., 1
sess., Feb. 25, 1993 (Washington: GPO, 1993).

the previous May, completed its work and issued recommendations.⁶⁹ (The creation
and recommendations of the commission are explained in the succeeding
paragraphs.) The committee also recommended that the Senate consider the
proposals of this Ethics Study Commission as soon as possible and adopt changes
which would enhance public accountability, be fair to Senators and staff, and
minimize the demands on the time of Senators serving on the Select Committee on
Ethics.⁷⁰
1993-1994 Senate Ethics Study Commission. In 1993, the Senate
established the bipartisan Senate Ethics Study Commission to study the Select⁷¹
Committee on Ethics and recommend changes. The mandate of the 10-member,
bipartisan Senate Ethics Study Commission was (1) to study the rules and procedures
used by the Select Committee on Ethics to investigate and resolve complaints and
allegations against Members, officers, and employees of the Senate; and (2) to
recommend improvements to enhance public confidence in the Senate’s ability to
fulfill fairly its constitutional duty of self-discipline. The “confusing and complex”
procedures of the Select Committee in Ethics, which created the potential for
unfairness and a lack of confidence in the process, was noted by many former⁷²
committee members. The commission, comprising all six incumbent members of
the Ethics Committee and four former members of the committee, held hearings
during which testimony was heard from former chairs of the committee, attorneys
who had practiced before or were on the staff of the committee, academicians, and⁷³
representatives of public organizations with interests in legislative ethics.
In March 1994, the Senate Ethics Study Commission issued its final report and
recommendations.⁷⁴ The Senate, however, took no immediate action.

⁶⁹ Helen Dewar, “Bipartisan Panel to Study Senate’s Ethics Procedures,” The Washington
Post, Mar. 4, 1993, p. A8.
⁷⁰ U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of
Congress, Final Report of the Senate Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization^rd^st
of Congress, 103 Cong., 1 sess., S.Rept. 103-215, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 21.
⁷¹ S.Res. 111, agreed to in the Senate May 21, 1993, “Authorizing the Senate Ethics Study
Commission,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, May 21, 1993, pp. 10787-10788. See also
Helen Dewar, “Bipartisan Panel to Study Senate Ethics Procedures,” The Washington Post,
Mar. 4, 1993, p. A8.
⁷² Sen. Robert Smith, “Senate Ethics Procedure Reform Resolution of 1999,” remarks in the
Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 145, Nov. 5, 1999, p. 28841.
⁷³ U.S. Congress, Senate, Ethics Study Commission, Recommending Revisions to the
Procedures of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, hearings, 103^rd Cong., 1^st sess., May

20, 1993, and June 8, 17, 1993 (Washington, GPO, 1993).

⁷⁴ U.S. Congress, Senate Ethics Study Commission, Recommending Revisions to the
Procedures of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, report to the Senate Leadership^rd^nd
Pursuant to S.Res. 111, 103 Cong., 2 sess., S.Prt. 103-71 (Washington: GPO, 1994); and
Stephen Gettinger, “Senate Ethics Revision Process,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly
Report, vol. 54, Mar. 5, 1994, pp. 522-523.

1999 Senate Select Committee on Ethics Procedural Changes. On
November 5, 1999, the Senate adopted most of the recommendations proposed by⁷⁵
the Senate Ethics Study Commission five years earlier (S.Res. 222).
The principal changes made by the Senate in agreeing to S.Res. 222 included the
following:⁷⁶
^!Replacing the previous multi-stage process with a single phase
“preliminary inquiry.” Now, if there is substantial evidence of a
violation after the preliminary review, charges are issued and there
may be “adjudicative review” of the evidence. Such a review can
include a hearing. These changes did not affect the ability of outside
groups to file allegations against a Member, officer, or employee of
the Senate.
^!Providing a uniform set of potential sanctions for rules violations to⁷⁷
be used alone or in combination. These are (1) financial restitution,
(2) referral to a party conference (regarding seniority or positions of
responsibility), (3) censure, and (4) expulsion. The committee
retained the flexibility to propose other penalties and was authorized
to issue a reprimand to an individual without his or her consent (as
had been required previously) after the opportunity for a hearing and
with the right of appeal to the Senate.
^!Allowing public or private “Letters of Admonition” from the Ethics
Committee. These letters, previously used by the committee, are not
considered formal discipline, but are used to inform Senators about
conduct the committee believes is questionable or inappropriate.
^!Adding financial restitution to the possible sanctions (including
suspension and dismissal) that might be placed on a Senate officer
or employee.

⁷⁵ “Senate Ethics Procedure Reform Resolution of 1999,” Congressional Record, vol. 145,
Nov. 5, 1999, pp. 28834-28843; Elizabeth Palmer, “Senate Votes to Revamp Its Ethics
Investigations Process,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 59, Nov. 20, 1999,
p. 2772; and Damon Chappie, “Committee Streamlines Senate’s Ethics Procedures,” Roll
Call, Nov, 15, 1999, p. 8.
⁷⁶ The changes adopted in 1999 are still in effect.
⁷⁷ These sanctions are similar to ones provided for in existing committee rules, but provided
for the payment of restitution as a penalty and emphasized consistency in the wording in
each type of punishment.

Proposed Changes to the Senate Select
Committee on Ethics
During the past four-plus decades since the establishment of the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct in 1964, Senators and others have considered
alternatives to the present system of enforcing the Senate rules of conduct.⁷⁸ These
proposals have called for an Office of Public Integrity; independent ethics
commissions, or offices, within the legislative branch, composed of incumbent or
former Members of Congress, retired judges, or private citizens; or a variation of
these ideas.⁷⁹
The most serious discussions in the past 10 years, however, began in the 109^th
Congress (2005-2007) with different bill introductions.⁸⁰ In March 2006, the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs debated and ultimately
voted against a proposal to establish an independent office to enforce congressional
ethics and lobbying laws. Subsequently, the Senate defeated a similar amendment
to a pending gift and lobbying reform measure (S. 2349).⁸¹
After the convening of the 110^th Congress (2007-2009), discussions continued
about ethics reform and enforcement.⁸² On January 18, 2007, during consideration
of the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, the Senate rejected
an amendment to establish the Senate Office of Public Integrity.⁸³

⁷⁸ For additional information, refer to CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional
Rules of Conduct: A Historical Overview. For a pro-con discussion of creating independent
ethics entities within the legislative branch, as well as the constitutional issues involved,
refer to CRS Report RL33790, “Independent” Legislative Commission or Office for Ethics
and/or Lobbying, by Jack Maskell and R. Eric Petersen.
⁷⁹ See for example, U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Ethics Reform Task Force on H.
Res. 168, committee print, 105^th Cong., 1^st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1997) p. 6; Glenn
Simpson, “Non-Senators Proposed to Be Ethics Panelists,” Roll Call, Oct. 8, 1991, pp. 1,
27; Dennis Thompson, “Why Congressional Ethics Committees Are Unethical,” The
Brookings Review, vol. 13, no. 4, Fall 1995, pp. 44-48; Norman Ornstein, “Put Congressmen
Emerti on Ethics Panels,” Wall Street Journal, May 28, 1991, p. A22; Norman Ornstein,
“Use Former Members, Staff to Filter Ethics Complaints,” Roll Call, Feb 4, 2004, p. 6; and
“Locking Up the Ghost of Congress Past” (editorial), The New York Times, Mar. 3, 2007,
p. A26.
⁸⁰ See, for example, S.Con.Res. 82, and S. 2259, 109^th Congress.
⁸¹ “Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006,” Congressional Record, daily
ed., v. 152, Mar. 28, 2006, pp. S2440-S2254 and S2459; and Jeffrey Birnbaum, “Ethics
Office for Hill Rejected,” The Washington Post, Mar. 3, 2006, pp. A1, A8.
⁸² “Most Ethical Congress” (editorial), Roll Call , Nov. 27, 2006, p. 4; Elana Schor “Ethics
Reformers in House Push For Independent Panel,” The Hill, Dec. 6, 2006; Carl Hulse,
“Democrats in Congress Consider Outside Ethics Panel,” The New York Times, Dec. 13,
2006, p. A19; and Sen. Barack Obama, “A Chance to Change the Game,” The Washington
Post, Jan. 4, 2007, p. A17.
⁸³ “Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007,” Congressional Record, daily
(continued...)

On January 31, 2007, the leadership in the House of Representatives established
the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement to consider whether the House should
create an “outside” congressional ethics enforcement entity.⁸⁴ The Senate, however,
has thus far not created any similar study group during the 110^th Congress.
On December 19, 2007, the House task force chair, Representative Michael
Capuano, released a report on behalf of several task force members and introduced
H.Res. 895 to amend House rules and create an independent Office of Congressional
Ethics (OCE), composed of six private citizen/board members jointly appointed by
House leaders.⁸⁵ The measure passed the House on March 11, 2008.⁸⁶
Under the provisions of H.Res. 895, current House Members, federal
employees, and lobbyists would not be eligible to serve on the board, which could
be composed of private citizens with a wide range of professional experience. Former
Members of Congress and congressional staff as well as former state legislators and
judges have been suggested as types of potential members of this board, whose
responsibility would be to review allegations of misconduct by Members, officers,
and employees of the House and then, if appropriate, to make recommendations to
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for its consideration.⁸⁷ Any referrals
received by the Standards of Official Conduct Committee would be acted on largely
in accord with the committee’s current rules. However, the committee would be
required to make a public announcement of its disposition of certain referrals within
specific time frame.
The new OCE does not have subpoena power and is prohibited from referring
any case to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct within 60 days
of a primary or general election in which the subject of an investigation is a
candidate.

⁸³ (...continued)
ed., v. 153, Jan. 18, 2007, pp. S743-S744.
⁸⁴ Rep. Michael E. Capuano, “Dear Colleague” letter, Dec. 19, 2007, [http://www.house.gov/
capuano/news/2007/121907ethics/Dear%20Colleague%20Letter.pdf]; and Susan Davis,
“Pelosi, Boehner Name Eight Members to Ethics Task Force,” Roll Call, Feb. 1, 2007, pp.

3, 22.

⁸⁵ U .S. House, Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement [http://www.house.gov/capuano/
news/2007/121907ethics/Ethics%20Report.pdf], unpublished report, Dec. 2007; and Drew
Armstrong, “Ethics Task Force Recommendations Pose Challenge for House Leaders,” CQ
Today, Jan. 22, 2008, pp. 5-6.
⁸⁶ “Providing for the Adoption of H.Res. 895, Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 154,
Mar. 11, 2008, pp. H1515-H1536.
⁸⁷ Former Members and staff of the House could not serve on the board sooner than one year
after leaving office.

Appendix A. Members of the Senate Select Committee
on Standards and Conduct, 89^th-94^th Congresses (1965-1977)
MemberPartyStateBegan AssignmentEndedAssignment

89^th Congress (1965-1967)

Stennis, John C.DMSJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1967
Monroney, A. S. MikeDOKJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1967
McCarthy, Eugene J.DFL^aMNJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1967
Bennett, Wallace F.RUTJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1967
Cooper, John ShermanRKYJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1967
Pearson, James B.RKSJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1967

90^th Congress (1967-1969)

Stennis, John C.DMSJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1969
Monroney, A. S. MikeDOKJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1969
McCarthy, Eugene J.DFL^aMNJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1969
Bennett, Wallace F.RUTJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1969
Cooper, John ShermanRKYJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1969
Pearson, James B.RKSJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1969

91^st Congress (1969-1971)

Stennis, John C.DMSJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1971
McCarthy, Eugene J.DFL^aMNJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1971
Talmadge, Herman E.DGAFebruary 23, 1970 January 2, 1971
Bennett, Wallace F.RUTJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1971
Cooper, John ShermanRKYJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1971
Pearson, James B.RKSJuly 9, 1965 October 29, 1969
Jordan, Len B.RIDOctober 29, 1969 January 2, 1971

92^nd Congress (1971-1973)

Stennis, John C.DMSJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1973
Talmadge, Herman E.DGAFebruary 23, 1970 January 2, 1973
Spong, William B., Jr.DVAJuly 14 1971 January 2, 1973
Bennett, Wallace F.RUTJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1973

MemberPartyStateBegan AssignmentEndedAssignment
Cooper, John ShermanRKYJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1973
Jordan, Leonard B.RIDOctober 29, 1969 January 2, 1973

93^rd Congress (1973-1975)

Stennis, John C.DMSJuly 9, 1965 January 2, 1975
Talmadge, Herman E.DGAFebruary 23, 1970 January 2, 1975
Cannon, Howard W.DNVApril 18, 1973 January 2, 1975
Bennett, Wallace F.RUTJuly 9, 1965 December 20, 1974
Curtis, Carl T.RNEFebruary 23, 1973 January 2, 1975
Brooke, Edward W.RMAFebruary 23, 1973 January 2, 1975

94^th Congress (1975-1977)

Cannon, Howard W.DNVApril 18, 1973 February 11, 1977
Stennis, John C.DMSJuly 9, 1965 February 11, 1975
Talmadge, Herman E.DGAFebruary 23, 1970 February 11, 1977
Curtis, Carl T.RNEJanuary 11, 1973 February 11, 1977
Brooke, Edward W.RMAFebruary 23, 1973 February 11, 1977
Young, Milton R.RNDFebruary 7, 1975 February 11, 1977
^Source:^Garrisoⁿ^Nelsoⁿ^,^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^eesⁱⁿ^t^h^{e U}^.^{S. C}^ongr^es^s^1947-1992⁽^W^a^s^hi^ngt^oⁿ^:^Co^ngr^e^ssi^oⁿ^a^l
^Q^u^art^e^rl^y^,^In^{c., 1994).}
^{a. Dem}^o^{cratic Farm}^er-^L^{abor P}^a^rty

Appendix B. Members of the Senate Select Committee
On Ethics, 95^th -110^th Congresses (1977-2008)
Member P arty State B e ganAssignment EndedAssignment

95^th Congress (1977-1979)

Stevenson, Adlai E. IIIDILFebruary 11, 1977 April 10, 1979
Ribicoff, Abraham A.DCTFebruary 11, 1977 April 10, 1979
Morgan, Robert B.DNCFebruary 11, 1977 April 10, 1979
Schmitt, Harrison H.RNMFebruary 24, 1977 April 10, 1979
Tower, John G.RTX February 24, 1977 April 10, 1979
Weicker, Lowell P., Jr.RCTFebruary 24, 1977 April 13, 1978
Pearson, James B.RKSFebruary 28, 1978 March 2, 1978
Mathias, Charles McC., Jr.RMDApril 13, 1978 April 10, 1979

96^th Congress (1979-1981)

Stevenson, Adlai E. IIIDILApril 10, 1979 October 31, 1979
Morgan, Robert B.DNCApril 10, 1979 January 2, 1981
Burdick, Quentin N.DNDApril 10, 1979 January 25, 1980
Schmitt, Harrison H.RNMApril 10, 1979 October 31, 1979
Hatfield, Mark O.RORApril 10, 1979 January 28, 1980
Helms, Jesse A.RNCApril 10, 1979 January 6, 1981
Heflin, Howell T.DALOctober 31, 1979 January 2, 1981
Pryor, David H.DARJanuary 25, 1980 January 2, 1981
Wallop, MalcolmRWYOctober 31, 1979 January 2, 1981
Cochran, ThadRMSJanuary 28, 1980 January 2, 1981

97^th Congress (1981-1983)

Wallop, MalcolmRWYJanuary 6, 1981 January 3, 1983
Cochran, ThadRMSJanuary 6, 1981 January 21, 1981
Mattingly, MackRGAJanuary 6, 1981 January 3, 1983
Heflin, Howell T.DALJanuary 6, 1981 January 3, 1983
Pryor, David H.DARJanuary 6, 1981 January 3, 1983
Eagleton, Thomas F.DMOJanuary 6, 1981 January 3, 1983

Member P arty State B e ganAssignment EndedAssignment
Helms, Jesse A.RNCJanuary 21, 1981 January 3, 1983

98^th Congress (1983-1985)

Stevens, Theodore F.RAKJanuary 3, 1983 March 5, 1985
Helms, Jesse A.RNCJanuary 3, 1983 March 5, 1985
Durenberger, David F.RMNJanuary 3, 1983 March 5, 1985
Heflin, Howell T.DALJanuary 3, 1983 March 5, 1985
Pryor, David H.DARJanuary 3, 1983 March 5, 1985
Eagleton, Thomas F.DMOJanuary 3, 1983 March 5, 1985

99^th Congress (1985-1987)

Rudman, Warren B.RNHMarch 5, 1985 January 6, 1987
Helms, Jesse A.RNCMarch 5, 1985 January 6, 1987
Kassebaum, Nancy LandonRKAMarch 5, 1985 January 6, 1987
Heflin, Howell T.DALMarch 5, 1985 January 6, 1987
Pryor, David H.DARMarch 5, 1985 January 6, 1987
Eagleton, Thomas F.DMOMarch 5, 1985 January 2, 1987

100^th Congress (1987-1989)

Heflin, Howell T.DALJanuary 6, 1987 January 2, 1989
Pryor, David H.DARJanuary 6, 1987 January 2, 1989
Sanford, TerryDNCJanuary 6, 1987 January 2, 1989
Rudman, Warren B.RNHJanuary 6, 1987 January 2, 1989
Helms, Jesse A.RNCJanuary 6, 1987 January 2, 1989
Kassebaum, Nancy LandonRKAJanuary 6, 1987 January 2, 1989

101^st Congress (1989-1991)

Heflin, Howell T.DALFebruary 2, 1989 January 2, 1991
Pryor, David H.DARFebruary 2, 1989 January 2, 1991
Sanford, TerryDNCFebruary 2, 1989 January 2, 1991
Rudman, Warren B.RNHFebruary 2, 1989 January 2, 1991
Helms, Jesse A.RNCFebruary 2, 1989 January 2, 1991
Lott, Trent RMSFebruary 2, 1989 January 2, 1991

Member P arty State B e ganAssignment EndedAssignment

102^nd Congress (1991-1993)

Heflin, Howell T.DALMarch 19, 1991 November 20, 1991
Pryor, David H.^aDARMarch 19, 1991 May 22, 1991
Sanford, Terry^bDNCMarch 19, 1991 January 2, 1993
Rudman, Warren B.RNHMarch 19, 1991 January 2, 1993
Lott, TrentRMSMarch 19, 1991 January 2, 1993
Gorton, SladeRWAMarch 19, 1991 January 2, 1993
Bingaman, Jeff^cDNM May 22, 1991 January 2, 1993
Helms, Jesse^dRNCAugust 2, 1991 November 20, 1991
Bryan, Richard^eDNVAugust 2, 1991 January 2, 1993

103^rd Congress (1993-1995)

Bryan, RichardDNVJanuary 26, 1993 January 2, 1995
Mikulski, BarbaraDMDJanuary 26, 1993 January 2, 1995
Thomas, DaschleDSDJanuary 26, 1993 January 2, 1995
McConnell, MitchRKYJanuary 26, 1993 January 2, 1995
Stevens, TedRAKJanuary 26, 1993 May 19, 1993
Smith, RobertRNHJanuary 26, 1993 January 2, 1995
Craig, LarryRIDMay 19,1993January 2, 1995

104^th Congress (1995-1997)

McConnell, MitchRKYJanuary 11, 1995 January 2, 1997
Smith, RobertRNHJanuary 11, 1995 January 2, 1997
Craig, LarryRIDJanuary 11, 1995 January 2, 1997
Bryan, RichardDNVJanuary 11, 1995 January 23, 1996
Mikulski, BarbaraDMDJanuary 11, 1995 January 23, 1996
Dorgan, Byron DNDJanuary 11, 1995 January 2, 1997
Reid, HarryDNVJanuary 23, 1996 January 2, 1997
Murray, PattyD WAJanuary 23, 1996 January 2, 1997

Member P arty State B e ganAssignment EndedAssignment

105^th Congress (1997-1999)

Smith, RobertRNHJanuary 9, 1997 January 2, 1999
Roberts, PatRKSJanuary 9, 1997 January 2, 1999
Sessions, JeffRALJanuary 9, 1997 January 2, 1999
Reid, HarryDNVJanuary 9, 1997 January 2, 1999
Murray, PattyD WAJanuary 9, 1997 January 2, 1999
Conrad, Kent DSNDJanuary 9, 1997 January 2, 1999

106^th Congress (1999-2001)

Smith, Robert^fRNHJanuary 7, 1999 January 2, 2001
Roberts, PatRKSJanuary 7, 1999 January 2, 2001
Voinovich, GeorgeROHJanuary 7, 1999 January 2, 2001
Reid, HarryDNVJanuary 7, 1999 January 2, 2001
Conrad, Kent DNDJanuary 7, 1999 January 2, 2001
Durbin, RichardDILJanuary 7, 1999 January 2, 2001

107^th Congress (2001-2003)

Roberts, PatRKSJanuary 25, 2001 January 2, 2003
Voinovich, GeorgeROHJanuary 25, 2001 January 2, 2003
Thomas, CraigRWYJanuary 25, 2001 January 2, 2003
Reid, Harry^gDNVJanuary 25, 2001 January 2, 2003
Akaka, DanielDHIJanuary 25, 2001 January 2, 2003
Lincoln, BlancheDARJanuary 25, 2001 January 2, 2003
Inouye, Daniel^hDHIFebruary 4, 2002July 30, 2002
Reed, Jack^hDRIFebruary 4, 2002 July 30, 2002

108^th Congress (2003-2005)

Voinovich, GeorgeROHJanuary 15, 2003 January 2, 2005
Roberts, PatRKSJanuary 15, 2003 January 2, 2005
Thomas, CraigRWYJanuary 15, 2003 January 2, 2005
Reid, HarryDNVJanuary 15, 2003 January 2, 2005

Member P arty State B e ganAssignment EndedAssignment
Akaka, DanielDHIJanuary 15, 2003 January 2, 2005
Lincoln, BlancheDARJanuary 15, 2003 January 2, 2005

109^th Congress (2005-2007)

Voinovich, GeorgeROHJanuary 6, 2005 January 2, 2007
Roberts, PatRKSJanuary 6, 2005 January 2, 2007
Thomas, CraigRWYJanuary 6, 2005 January 2, 2007
Johnson, TimDSDJanuary 6, 2005 January 2, 2007
Akaka, DanielDHIJanuary 6, 2005 January 18, 2006
Pryor, MarkDARJanuary 6, 2005 January 2, 2007
Salazar, KenDCO January 18, 2006January 2, 2007

110^th Congress (2007-2009)

Johnson, TimⁱDSDJanuary 12, 2007-
Boxer, BarbaraⁱDCAJanuary 12, 2007-
Pryor, MarkDARJanuary 12 , 2007 -
Salazar, KenDCO January 12, 2007-
Brown, Sherrod^jDOHApril 17, 2007-
Cornyn, JohnRTXJanuary 12, 2007-
Roberts, PatRKSJanuary 12, 2007-
Thomas, CraigRWYJanuary 12, 2007June 4, 2007^k
Johnny Isakson^kRGAJune 13, 2007-
^So^urce^{: Gar}^r^isoⁿ^Nelsoⁿ^,^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^eesⁱⁿ^t^h^{e U}^.^{S. C}^ongr^es^s^1947-1992⁽^W^a^s^hi^ngt^oⁿ^:^Co^ngr^e^ssi^oⁿ^a^l^st^th
^Q^u^art^e^rl^y^,^In^{c., 1994). In}^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^{r t}^h^e¹⁰¹^-¹¹⁰^Co^ngr^e^sse^{s w}^a^{s o}^b^t^aⁱ^ne^d^fr^o^m^va^rⁱ^o^u^{s issue}^s
^of^t^h^e^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^.
^{a. S}^eⁿ^.^P^r^y^o^{r lef}^t^th^{e com}^m^{ittee in}^May^{1991, bu}^{t retu}^rn^{ed on}^S^e^pte^m^b^e^{r 10, 1991, in}^{place of}
^Se^na^t^o^r^Bⁱ^nga^m^a^n,^t^o^se^r^v^e^d^u^rⁱ^{ng t}^h^e^c^o^m^p^l^e^tⁱ^o^{n o}^f^t^h^e^“K^e^a^tⁱ^{ng Fi}^ve^”ⁱ^nve^stⁱ^g^a^tⁱ^o^n.^T^h^a^t
ⁱⁿ^v^e^s^tⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ^en^{ded on}^N^o^v^e^m^b^{er 20, 1991.}
^b^.^Oⁿ^A^ugust²^,^{1991, Sen}^.^San^f^{ord w}^a^sⁿ^a^m^e^{d ch}^airm^an^of^th^{e com}^m^{ittee f}^o^{r all m}^a^tters^ex^{cept th}^e
^“^K^eatin^g^Fiv^{e” in}^v^e^stig^atioⁿ^.
^{c. S}^eⁿ^.^Bin^g^a^m^aⁿ^w^a^s^appoin^t^{ed to s}^e^rv^{e in}^{place of}^S^eⁿ^.^P^r^y^o^{r. How}^e^v^e^{r, h}^e^{later decl}ⁱⁿ^{ed to}
^partⁱ^cⁱ^p^at^eⁱⁿ^t^h^e^“^K^eatⁱⁿ^g^Fⁱ^v^{e” i}ⁿ^v^e^s^tⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ^,^an^{d S}^eⁿ^.^Pry^o^{r w}^a^s^reappoiⁿ^t^ed^f^o^r^t^h^at^pu^rpos^e.
^Oⁿ^A^ugust²^,^{1991, Sen}^.^Bⁱⁿ^g^a^m^aⁿ^w^a^s^reappoin^t^ed^{to s}^e^rv^{e f}^o^{r all com}^m^{ittee m}^a^tters^ex^cept
^th^{e “}^K^eatin^g^Fiv^{e” in}^v^e^stig^atioⁿ^.^nd
^{d. S}^eⁿ^.^H^e^l^m^s^w^a^s^reappoiⁿ^t^ed^t^o^s^e^rv^e^du^riⁿ^g^t^h^e¹⁰²^Coⁿ^g^r^{ess f}^o^r^th^{e r}^e^m^aⁱⁿ^d^e^r^o^f^th^e^“^K^eatin^g
^Fiv^{e” in}^v^e^stig^atioⁿ^.
^{e. S}^eⁿ^.^Bry^aⁿ^w^a^s^appoiⁿ^t^{ed t}^o^s^e^rv^{e f}^o^{r al}^l^m^a^t^t^e^rs^ex^cept^t^h^{e “}^K^eatⁱⁿ^g^Fⁱ^v^{e” i}ⁿ^v^e^s^tⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ^.

^f^.^Sen^.^Sm^ith^b^ecam^e^ch^airm^an^o^f^th^{e Sen}^a^{te En}^vⁱ^roⁿ^m^en^{t an}^d^P^u^b^{lic W}^o^rk^{s Co}^m^m^{ittee o}ⁿ^No^v^.⁹^,
^{1999, an}^{d S}^eⁿ^.^R^obert^s^w^a^s^a^ppoiⁿ^t^e^d^c^h^aⁱ^r^m^aⁿ^o^f^t^h^e^S^e^l^e^c^t^C^o^m^m^{ittee on}^Ethⁱ^cs^th^{e s}^a^m^e
^day^.
^g^.^On^Juⁿ^e^{6, 2000, w}^h^en^th^e^Dem^o^crats^took^con^t^{rol of}^th^{e S}^eⁿ^a^{te, S}^eⁿ^.^R^e^{id becam}^{e ch}^airm^an^of
^com^m^ittee.
^h^.^On^F^e^b^.⁴^,^{2002, Sen}^.^In^ou^y^e^w^a^s^appoin^t^{ed to ch}^{air th}^{e com}^m^{ittee in}^m^a^tters^reg^a^rdin^g^th^e
ⁱⁿ^v^e^s^tig^ation^of^Sen^.^R^obert^T^o^rricelli,^an^d^Sen^.^R^{eed w}^a^s^appoin^t^{ed to s}^e^rv^{e in}^{place of}^Sen^.^th
^A^k^ak^{a f}^o^r^th^isⁱⁿ^v^e^stig^atioⁿ^.^A^{ll o}^t^h^e^r^co^m^m^{ittee b}^u^sin^e^{ss f}^o^r^th^{e 1}⁰⁷^Co^ngr^e^{ss w}^a^{s ha}^nd^l^e^d
^by^t^h^{e s}ⁱ^x^m^e^m^b^ers^ori^gⁱⁿ^al^l^y^appoiⁿ^t^ed.
i. ^Oⁿ^Jaⁿ^.^12,^2007,^S^eⁿ^.^Box^e^{r w}^a^sⁿ^a^m^e^{d c}^h^aⁱ^rm^aⁿ^of^t^h^e^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^S^e^l^e^c^t^Co^m^m^itte^e^oⁿ^E^t^hⁱ^c^s
ⁱⁿ^Sen^.^J^o^hⁿ^s^oⁿ^’^s^ab^sen^{ce b}^ecau^{se o}^f^illn^ess.
^j^.^Oⁿ^A^p^{r. 17, 2007, S}^eⁿ^.^Browⁿ^w^a^s^a^ppoiⁿ^t^ed^t^o^s^e^r^v^eⁱⁿ^p^l^{ace of}^Sen^.^{Salazar on}^ly^f^o^{r m}^a^tters
^r^e^lated^to^th^{e co}^m^m^ittee’^{s p}^r^elimⁱⁿ^ar^yⁱⁿ^q^u^ir^y^ar^isin^gⁱⁿ^coⁿⁿ^ectioⁿ^w^ith^th^{e f}ⁱ^rⁱⁿ^g^o^f^a^U^.^S^.
^atto^rⁿ^eyⁱⁿ^New^Mexⁱ^co^.
^k^.^S^eⁿ^.^T^h^om^as^{died in}^of^fⁱ^{ce on}^Juⁿ^e^{4, 2007, an}^{d w}^a^s^{replaced by}^S^eⁿ^.^Is^ak^s^oⁿ^on^Juⁿ^e^{13, 2007.}