V. Committee Procedures

The Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct[33] have been periodically revised since the Committee was established to reflect changes in Committee structure and procedures implemented by the House. Current rules also reflect changes necessitated following experience under prior rules. The current rules provide for an Office of Advice and Education within the Committee and the bifurcation of the Committee investigatory and disciplinary process. The rules also govern the issuance of advisory opinions, the receipt of complaints, and the conduct of Committee investigations.

Committee rules now set forth the following requirements for complaints filed with the Committee:[34]

• • A complaint must be in writing, dated, and properly verified.[35]

• • A complaint must set forth the following in simple, concise, and direct statements: the name and legal address of the party filing the complaint; the name and position or title of the respondent; the nature of the alleged violation of the Code of Official Conduct or of other law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the performance of duties or discharge of responsibilities; and the facts alleged to give rise to the violation.
  • A complaint shall not contain innuendo, speculative assertions, or conclusory statements.[36]

• • Information offered as a complaint by a Member of the House of Representatives may be transmitted directly to the Committee; however, information offered as a complaint by an individual not a Member of the House may be transmitted to the Committee, provided that a Member of the House certifies in writing that he or she believes the information is submitted in good faith and warrants the review and consideration of the Committee.
  • A complaint must be accompanied by a certification, which may be unsworn, that the complainant has provided an exact copy of the filed complaint and all attachments to the respondent.

• • The Committee shall not accept, and shall return to the complainant, any complaint submitted within the 60 days prior to an election in which the subject of the complaint is a candidate.
  • The Committee shall not consider a complaint, nor shall any investigation be undertaken by the Committee, of any alleged violation which occurred before the third previous Congress unless the Committee determines that the alleged violation is directly related to an alleged violation which occurred in a more recent Congress.

Committee rules also contain requirements and procedures that follow the filing of a complaint. Initially, a determination is made by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee as to whether a complaint is in compliance with House and Committee rules.[37] If it is determined that the complaint submitted meets the requirements for what constitutes a complaint, Committee rules provide for notification of that determination to the respondent, and for an opportunity for the respondent to provide a response.[38] The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member may establish an investigative subcommittee or make recommendations to the full Committee as to the disposition of the complaint.[39] The recommendations that the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee may make include recommending that the Committee dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof, or that it establish an investigative subcommittee.[40]  The rules permit the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member to jointly gather additional information concerning alleged conduct which is the basis for a complaint until the Committee has established an investigative subcommittee or placed the issue of establishing an investigative subcommittee on the agenda of Committee meeting.[41]

The rules also permit, notwithstanding the absence of a filed complaint, the Committee to consider any information in its possession indicating that a Member, officer, or employee may have committed a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the performance of his or her duties or the discharge of his or her responsibilities.[42] Further, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member may jointly gather additional information concerning such an alleged violation unless and until an investigative subcommittee has been established.[43]

If an investigative subcommittee is established, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member designate four Members of the House (with equal representation from the majority and minority parties) to serve on the subcommittee. One of the Members of the investigative subcommittee is designated by the Chairman of the Committee to serve as Chairman of the investigative subcommittee. The Ranking Minority Member of the Committee designates one Member of the investigative subcommittee to be its Ranking Minority Member.[44]

Once appointed, the investigative subcommittee gathers evidence relating to the matter under investigation. Any evidence relevant to the inquiry is admissible unless it is privileged under House rules.[45]  The investigative subcommittee may, by a majority vote of its Members, compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documents it deems necessary to conduct its inquiry.[46]  In addition, investigative subcommittee staff may interview witnesses and examine documents, among other investigative measures.[47]  The proceedings of the investigative subcommittee, including the taking of witness testimony, are conducted in executive session.[48] All witnesses and the respondent in an inquiry may be represented by counsel.[49]

At the conclusion of its inquiry, the investigative subcommittee may “adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation if it determines that there is substantial reason to believe that a violation . . . has occurred.”[50] The Statement of Alleged Violation must contain a plain and concise statement of facts and a reference to the particular standard of conduct violated by the respondent.[51] Prior to adopting the Statement of Alleged Violation, the investigative subcommittee must make exculpatory information received by the investigative subcommittee available to the respondent. [52] The rules permit a respondent to submit an answer, in writing and under oath, to the Statement of Alleged Violation, as well as to file a Motion for a Bill of Particulars and a Motion to Dismiss.[53] If an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation, it shall transmit a report to the Committee that contains a summary of the information received during the inquiry along with the conclusions and recommendations, if any, of the investigative subcommittee.[54]

Unless otherwise resolved under Committee and House rules, the next step of the disciplinary process requires the allegations in the Statement of Alleged Violation to be put before an adjudicatory subcommittee that consists of all Members of the Committee who did not serve on the investigative subcommittee.[55] In a public adjudicatory hearing to determine whether the alleged violations have been proven by clear and convincing evidence, both the respondent and Committee counsel may present evidence.[56] The burden of proof rests on Committee counsel to establish the facts alleged in the Statement of Alleged Violation by clear and convincing evidence.[57]

If a majority of the members of an adjudicatory subcommittee find that any count of in a Statement of Alleged Violation has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, a public sanction hearing is held before all of the members of the Standards Committee to determine the appropriate sanction to adopt or to recommend to the House.[58]

As noted, the Committee may recommend one or more of several different sanctions to the House of Representatives, including expulsion from the House of Representatives, censure, or reprimand.[59] The Committee may also send a Letter of Reproval to a respondent without recommending further action by the full House.[60] A Letter of Reproval is “intended to be a rebuke of a Member’s conduct issued by a body of that Member’s peers acting, as the Standards Committee, on behalf of the House of Representatives.”[61]

In the entire history of the House of Representatives, five Members have been expelled. Of the five Members, three of them were expelled for conduct traitorous to the Union in the Civil War era. Michael J. Myers was expelled from the House in 1980 following his conviction for bribery in connection with the ABSCAM scandal.[62] James A. Traficant, Jr., was expelled from the House in 2002, following his trial and conviction for conspiring to violate the bribery statute (18 U.S.C. § 201), acceptance of gratuities, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to defraud the United States, filing false federal income tax returns, and racketeering.[63] Since the establishment of this Committee, four Members have been censured by the House after Committee investigations, and seven have been reprimanded. In addition, the Committee has issued five public letters of reproval, without recommending action by the full House, and has publicly admonished several other Members for their conduct. Ten Members left the House after charges were brought by the Committee or court convictions were returned but before House action could be concluded.