IV. History of the Committee

The first recorded instance of the House of Representatives attempting to take disciplinary action against a Member occurred in 1798. On January 30, Matthew Lyon (of Vermont) spat upon Roger Griswold (of Connecticut) during a vote. A letter of apology was sent; nevertheless, the Committee of the Whole heard the evidence and recommended expulsion. The vote fell two short of the two-thirds majority necessary to expel a Member.[14]

From 1798 until 1967, the House undertook disciplinary action against Members over 40 times, with no standardized approach. The offenses ranged from dueling to inserting obscene material in the Congressional Record. Some cases were handled directly on the House floor without Committee action, others through the creation of select investigating committees. In at least one case, the accused Member was not allowed to speak on his own behalf or to present any defense.[15] There were even attempts to punish former Members who had resigned.[16]

Beginning in the late 1940s, Senators Wayne Morse and Paul Douglas and Representative Charles Bennett advocated the enactment of an official code of conduct. In 1958, the Code of Ethics for Government Service was approved.[17] In 1964, following the investigation of Bobby Baker, Secretary to the Majority in the Senate, the Senate created a Select Committee on Standards of Conduct.

During the 89^th Congress, two different actions prompted the creation of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.  In 1965, the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress held hearings in which considerable testimony addressed the ethical conduct of Members, the need for codes of conduct and financial disclosure regulations, and the need for an ethics committee. In its final report, the Joint Committee’s recommendations included the creation of a House Committee on Standards and Conduct.[18]

The other action involved an investigation by the Special Subcommittee on Contracts of the Committee on House Administration into the expenditures of the Committee on Education and Labor and the conduct of its chairman, Representative Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., of New York. The Subcommittee’s report concluded that the chairman and certain employees had deceived House authorities as to travel expenses and also noted strong evidence that the chairman had directed certain illegal salary payments to his wife.[19] No formal action was taken during the 89^th Congress against Representative Powell. In the 90^th and 91^st Congresses, however, he was removed from his chairmanship, denied his seniority, and fined,[20] and an attempt was made to exclude him.[21]

Against this backdrop, a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was established in the closing days of the 89^th Congress. The Select Committee’s authority was limited to (1) recommending additional rules or regulations to ensure that Members, officers, and employees of the House adhere to proper standards of conduct in the discharge of their official duties; and (2) reporting violations of any law to the proper federal and state authorities.[22]

The Select Committee’s term was limited.[23]On April 13, 1967, the House established the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to be composed of six members of the majority party and six members of the minority party. The Committee was directed to recommend such changes in laws, rules, and regulations as necessary to establish and to enforce standards of official conduct for Members, officers, and employees.[24]  One year later, the House Rules were amended to include a Code of Conduct (currently codified as House Rule 23) and an annual financial disclosure requirement (currently codified as House Rule 26).[25] At the same time, the Committee was made a permanent standing committee with authority to investigate alleged violations of the Code of Conduct and to issue advisory opinions interpreting its provisions.[26]

Four ad hoc groups have influenced the Committee’s work: (1) The Commission on Administrative Review (generally known as the “Obey Commission”); (2) the Select Committee on Ethics; (3) the Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics; and (4) the Ethics Reform Task Force. The work of each group is summarized below.

The Obey Commission was established in July 1976 (95^th Congress), in the aftermath of Watergate, and directed to make recommendations to the House concerning ethical practices, financial accountability, and administrative operations of the House. These recommendations were set forth in a report entitled Financial Ethics[27] and a resolution, H. Res. 287.  The House’s adoption, on March 2, 1977, of H .Res. 287 changed the House rules governing financial disclosure, outside earned income, acceptance of gifts, unofficial office accounts, franking privileges, and travel. The Commission also recommended the creation of a select committee with legislative jurisdiction over these areas.

Based on the Obey Commission’s recommendation, the House established the Select Committee on Ethics in March 1977 to provide guidelines and interpretations concerning House rules currently codified as House Rules 23, 24, 25, and 26, and to report legislation. The Select Committee and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct operated simultaneously, with different jurisdictions. During the two years of the Select Committee’s existence, it issued 13 formal Advisory Opinions interpreting the new House rules and recommended that the House rules pertaining to financial disclosure and franking (current House Rules 24 and 26) be enacted into law, which occurred in 1978.[28] When the Select Committee completed its task, it issued a Final Report,[29]and its records and materials were transferred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to assist the latter in rendering advisory opinions and interpreting House rules relating to financial ethics and standards of conduct.

On February 2, 1989, the Speaker and the Republican Leader of the 101st Congress appointed a Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics to conduct a comprehensive review of House ethics rules and regulations.  Co-chaired by Representatives Vic Fazio and Lynn Martin, the Task Force looked anew at the rules concerning gifts, honoraria, outside earned income, financial disclosure, and the use of official resources, as well as considered issues relating to ethics committee procedures and the compensation of Members and other senior government officials. After four public hearings and much internal study, the Task Force issued a report[30] and a bill, H.R. 3660. This bill became the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-194, signed into law on November 30, 1989, and amended with technical corrections by Pub. L. 101-280 on May 4, 1990.

The Ethics Reform Act enacted a total ban on honoraria, revisions to the outside earned income limits, new post-employment restrictions, changes to the gift and travel limits, and financial disclosure revisions.  The Ethics Reform Act also contained several provisions affecting the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. In 1990, an Office of Advice and Education was established within the Committee to provide confidential advice to Members, officers, and employees. A statute of limitations of three terms was enacted for investigations of alleged violations. In 1991, the Committee’s membership increased from 12 to 14, and it adopted procedures ensuring that the same members do not both recommend charges and sit in judgment of those charges.

In February 1997, following the resolution of a Committee investigation of the Speaker of the House,[31] the House of Representatives established the Ethics Reform Task Force, chaired by Representatives Robert L. Livingston and Benjamin L. Cardin. The task force was directed to review procedures governing the ethics process and to recommend appropriate reforms. On September 18, 1997, the House adopted the recommendations of the Ethics Reform Task Force with amendments (H.R. 168). The recommended changes to the House ethics rules proposed by the Ethics Reform Task Force were designed to “improve the trust and confidence that the Members, and the American people, have in the House standards process.” The recommendations adopted by the House included a requirement that Standards Committee staff be nonpartisan, professional, and available as a resource to all Members of the Committee. Other recommendations adopted by the House included reducing the size of the Committee from 14 to 10 Members, expanding due process for respondents, and establishing a pool of 20 members (10 from each party) to be available to serve on an investigative subcommittee as needed by the Committee.[32]