Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer id ex malesuada, consequat enim et, molestie risus. Quisque orci libero, auctor at augue in, efficitur porttitor augue. Donec id risus vitae nibh blandit pharetra ut non risus. Donec iaculis lectus aliquet rutrum malesuada. Ut laoreet urna non dignissim pellentesque.
VI. Conduct Reflecting Creditably on the House
A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House. [House Rule 23, clause 1.]
Members, officers, and employees of the House must observe the broad ethical standards articulated in the Code of Official Conduct (Rule 23) of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The most comprehensive provision, Clause 1, states that a “Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”
In interpreting Clause 1 of the Code when first adopted, the Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the 90th Congress noted that this standard was included within the Code to deal with “flagrant” violations of the law that reflect on “Congress as a whole,” and that might otherwise go unpunished.[64] During floor debate preceding the adoption of the Code, however, Representative Price of Illinois, Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, rejected the notion that violations of law are simultaneous violations of the Code:
[64] House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Report under the Authority of H. Res. 418, H. Rep. 1176, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 17 (1968).
The committee endeavored to draft a code that would have a deterrent effect against improper conduct and at the same time be capable of enforcement if violated. Initially the committee considered making violations of law simultaneous violations of the code, but such a direct tie-in eventually was ruled out for the reason that it might open the door to stampedes for investigation of every minor complaint or purely personal accusation made against a Member. At the same time there was a need for retaining the ability to deal with any given act or accumulation of acts which, in the judgment of the committee, are severe enough to reflect discredit on the Congress. Stated purposefully in subjective language, this standard [clause 1] provides both assurances.[65]
[65] 114 Cong. Rec. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968).
Later in the floor discussion, another member of the Select Committee, Representative Arends of Illinois, emphasized that the committee intended the proposed rules to focus on official, rather than personal, conduct:
[T]he Congress has the constitutional right to determine its own rules. And this right, too, has its limitations. The rules are applicable only in connection with the operation of the Congress itself. Somehow a line must be drawn as between what is personal conduct and what is official conduct.[66]
[66] 114 Cong. Rec. 8785 (Apr. 3, 1968).
During the 110th Congress, the House adopted House Resolution 451,[67] which provided that
[67] 153 Cong. Rec. 7331 (June 27, 2007).
[W]henever a Member of the House of Representatives, including a Delegate or Resident Commission to the Congress, is indicted or otherwise informally charged with criminal conduct in a court of the United States or any State, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall, not later than 30 days after the date of such indictment or charge—
(1) empanel an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations; or
(2) if the Committee does not empanel an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations, submit a report to the House describing its reasons for not empanelling such an investigative subcommittee, together with the actions, if any, the Committee has taken in response to the allegations.
The resolution mandates some action by the Committee (either a report to the House or the empanelment of an investigative subcommittee) whenever a Member is charged with criminal conduct, and does not distinguish between felony and misdemeanor criminal charges.
To date, the Committee or the House has invoked Rule 23, clause 1, in investigating or disciplining Members for:
[68] House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative John J. McFall, H. Rep. 95-1742, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 2-3 (1978) (Count 1); House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Edward R. Roybal, H. Rep. 95-1743, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 2-3 (1978) (Count 1).
[69] House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Charles H. Wilson (of California), H. Rep. 95-1741, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 4-5 (1978); H. Rep. 95-1743, supra note 66, at 3-4 (Counts 3-4).
[70] See 124 Cong. Rec. 36976-84, 37005-17 (Oct. 13, 1978) (House reprimand).
[71] House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative John W. Jenrette, Jr., H. Rep. 96-1537, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1980) (Member resigned); House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Raymond F. Lederer, H. Rep. 97-110, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 4, 16-17 (1981) (Member resigned after Committee recommended expulsion);
H. Rep. 96-1387, supra note 61, at 2, 5 (vote of expulsion). In another case, the Committee issued a Statement of Alleged Violation concerning bribery and perjury, but took no further action when the Member resigned (House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Daniel J. Flood, H. Rep. 96-856, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 4-16, 125-126 (1980)).
H. Rep. 96-1387, supra note 61, at 2, 5 (vote of expulsion). In another case, the Committee issued a Statement of Alleged Violation concerning bribery and perjury, but took no further action when the Member resigned (House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Daniel J. Flood, H. Rep. 96-856, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 4-16, 125-126 (1980)).
[72] House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Mario Biaggi, H. Rep. 100-506, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 7, 9 (1988) (Member resigned while expulsion resolution was pending); H. Rep. 107-594, supra note 63 (vote of expulsion).
-
- Criminal convictions for conspiring to violate the federal bribery statute, acceptance of gratuities, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to defraud the United States, filing false federal income tax returns, and racketeering;[73]
[73] H. Rep. 107-594, supra note 63.
-
- Inflating the salaries of congressional employees in order to enable them to pay the Member’s personal, political, or congressional expenses;[74]
[74] House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Charles C. Diggs, Jr., H. Rep. 96-351, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979); see 125 Cong. Rec. 21584-92 (July 31, 1979) (Member censured and required to make restitution); see also House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Summary of Activities, 100th Cong., H. Rep. 100-1125, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 15-16 (1989) (In the Matter of Delegate Fofo I.F. Sunia) (Member and aide pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government and resigned).
-
- Accepting gifts from persons with interest in legislation in violation of the gift rule (Rule 43, clause 4);[75]
[75] House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Charles H. Wilson (of California), H. Rep. 96-930, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. 4-5 (1980); see 126 Cong. Rec. 13801-20 (June 10, 1980) (vote of censure); former House Rule 43 cl. 4.
-
- Engaging in sexual relationships with House pages;[76]
[76] House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Gerry E. Studds, H. Rep. 98-295, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983); House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Daniel B. Crane, H. Rep. 98-296, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983); see 129 Cong. Rec. H5280-95 (daily ed. July 20, 1983) (Committee recommended reprimand; House voted censure).
-
- Making improper sexual advances to a Peace Corps volunteer;[77]
[77] House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Gus Savage, H. Rep. 101-397, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 14 (1990) (Committee publicly disapproved conduct; no House action).
-
- Writing a misleading memorandum that could have influenced a personal associate’s probation and arranging for the improper administrative dismissal of parking tickets;[78]
[78] House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Barney Frank, H. Rep. 101-610, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (1990) (Member reprimanded by House).
-
- Engaging in a pattern and practice of conduct in which campaign funds were converted to personal use;[79]
[79] H. Rep. 107-130, supra note 61, at 3-9 (Member’s conduct was also found to violate provision of Code of Official Conduct prohibiting conversion of campaign funds to personal use and prohibiting expenditure of campaign funds that are not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes. See House Rule 23, clause 6).
-
- Violations of the House gift rule, the performance of campaign work in an official congressional office by congressional employees on official time, and the failure to maintain adequate records to verify the legitimacy of expenditures of campaign funds; [80] and
- Making statements that impugned the reputation of the House, failing to cooperate fully with fact-finding being undertaken by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, threatening to retaliate against a fellow Member because of the Member’s vote on particular legislation, and offering a political endorsement for a relative of a Member in exchange for vote by the Member in favor of particular legislation.[81]
[80] H. Rep. 106-979, supra note 61, at 6-7.
[81] House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, H. Rep. 108-722, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (Oct. 4, 2004).
A review of these cases indicates that the Committee has historically viewed clause 1 as encompassing violations of law and abuses of one’s official position.[82]
[81] House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, H. Rep. 108-722, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (Oct. 4, 2004).
[82] In one other case, the Committee never reached a determination as to whether what is now codified as Rule 23, clause 1 would encompass a criminal conviction for contributing to the unruliness of a minor and allegations of improper sexual advances to a congressional employee because the Member resigned prior to the conclusion of the Preliminary Inquiry. See Staff of House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Donald E. Lukens, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (Comm. Print 1990).
Add Bookmark
Share