[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[Chapter 25. Ethics; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 493]]

 
        CHAPTER 25 - ETHICS; COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

                              HOUSE PRACTICE

              A. Introductory

  Sec.  1. In General
  Sec.  2. Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
  Sec.  3. -- Membership; Eligibility for Committee Service; 
  Disqualification
  Sec.  4. -- Publications; Advisory Opinions
  Sec.  5. Initiating an Investigation; Complaints
  Sec.  6. Persons Subject to Disciplinary Procedures

              B. Basis for Imposing Sanctions

  Sec.  7. In General; The Code of Official Conduct
  Sec.  8. Code of Ethics for Government Service
  Sec.  9. Violations of Statutes
  Sec. 10. Misuse of Hiring Allowance; False Claims
  Sec. 11. Discrimination in Employment
  Sec. 12. Campaign Fund Irregularities
  Sec. 13. Solicitation of Contributions From Government Employees
  Sec. 14. Limitations on Earned Income; Honoraria
  Sec. 15. Acceptance of Gifts
  Sec. 16. Financial Disclosure
  Sec. 17. Professional Practice Restrictions
  Sec. 18. Acts Committed in Prior Congress or Before Becoming a Member

              C. Nature and Forms of Disciplinary Measures

  Sec. 19. In General
  Sec. 20. Expulsion
  Sec. 21. -- Procedure; Resolutions of Expulsion
  Sec. 22. Censure; Reprimand
  Sec. 23. -- Grounds; Particular Conduct
  Sec. 24. -- Censure Resolutions

[[Page 494]]

  Sec. 25. Fines; Restitution of Funds
  Sec. 26. Deprivation of Status; Caucus Rules
  Sec. 27. Letter of Reproval
        Research References
          U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2; Sec. 6, cl. 1
          2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1236-1289
          6 Cannon Sec. Sec. 236-238
          Deschler Ch 12 Sec. Sec. 2-18
          Manual Sec. Sec. 62, 738, 759, 806, 853, 1095-1103
          House Ethics Manual, 102d Cong.; Gifts and Travel, 106th 
            Cong., and Campaign Activity, 107th Cong., Committee on 
            Standards of Official Conduct


                              A. Introductory


  Sec. 1 . In General

                  Authority; Definitions and Distinctions

      The authority of the House to discipline its Members flows from 
  the Constitution. It provides that each House may ``punish its Members 
  for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, 
  expel a Member.'' U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2.
      Among the sanctions that the House may impose under this 
  provision, the rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
  outline the following:

     Expulsion from the House.
     Censure.
     Reprimand.
     Fine.
     Denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or 
         immunity of the Member if not in violation of the Constitution.
     Any other sanction determined by the committee to be 
         appropriate.

  Rule 25, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 107th Cong; see 
  Sec. Sec. 19-27, infra.

      These sanctions are not mutually exclusive. In a given case, a 
  Member may be censured, fined, and deprived of his seniority. Deschler 
  Ch 12 Sec. 12.1. A Member also may be reprimanded and ordered to 
  reimburse the costs of the committee's investigation. Manual Sec. 63.
      Imprisonment of a Member is a form of punishment that is 
  theoretically within the power of the House to impose, but such action 
  has never been

[[Page 495]]

  taken by the House. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 12. The disciplinary measures 
  referred to herein are separate and distinct from the sanctions of 
  fine or imprisonment that may be available under a criminal statute at 
  the State or Federal level. See Sec. 9, infra.

                          Exclusion Distinguished

      The power of exclusion is derived from the right of each House to 
  determine the qualifications of its Members, whereas the power of 
  expulsion stems from its authority to discipline Members for 
  misconduct. This distinction has not always been recognized. In 1870 a 
  Member was excluded from the 41st Congress on the ground that he had 
  sold appointments to the Military Academy. 1 Hinds Sec. 464. In 1967, 
  after an investigating committee recommended that a Member be fined 
  and censured for improperly maintaining his wife on the clerk-hire 
  payroll and for improper use of public funds for private purposes, the 
  House voted to impose a stronger penalty--to exclude him by denying 
  him his seat. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. Sec. 14.1, 16.1. However, the 
  Supreme Court determined such exclusion was not a sanction to be 
  invoked in cases involving the misconduct of a Member. It is available 
  only for failure to meet the constitutional qualifications of Members 
  as to age, citizenship, and inhabitancy. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 
  486 (1969).


  Sec. 2 . Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

                                 Generally

      Before the 90th Congress, select temporary committees were created 
  to consider allegations of improper conduct against a Member and to 
  recommend such disciplinary measures as might be appropriate. Deschler 
  Ch 12 Sec. 2. In the 90th Congress, the Committee on Standards of 
  Official Conduct was established as a standing committee of the House. 
  90-1, H. Res. 418, Apr. 13, 1967, p 9425. Under rule XIII clause 
  5(a)(5), the committee may report as privileged resolutions 
  recommending action by the House with respect to the official conduct 
  of any Member, officer, or employee of the House. Manual Sec. 853.

                         Legislative Jurisdiction

      The jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Official 
  Conduct, as set forth in rule X clause 1(p), consists of measures 
  relating to the Code of Official Conduct. Manual Sec. 737. Measures 
  proposing to amend the Code are not privileged for immediate 
  consideration when reported by that committee but may be considered in 
  the House pursuant to a special order from the Committee on Rules. See 
  Manual Sec. 853.

[[Page 496]]

          Investigative Jurisdiction; Recommendations and Reports

      Pursuant to rule XI clause 3, the Committee on Standards of 
  Official Conduct is authorized to conduct investigations, hold 
  hearings, and report any findings and recommendations to the House. 
  Manual Sec. 806. This committee has been given similar 
  responsibilities under House resolutions authorizing specific 
  investigations. Where the House has directed the committee to conduct 
  such a specific investigation, it has, on occasion, authorized the 
  committee to take staff depositions, to serve subpoenas within or 
  without the United States, and to participate by special counsel in 
  relevant judicial proceedings. See, e.g., 95-1, H. Res. 252, Feb. 9, 
  1977, pp 3966, 3975; 96-2, H. Res. 608, Mar. 27, 1980, p 6995. The 
  committee also has been authorized to investigate, with expanded 
  subpoena authority, persons other than Members, officers, and 
  employees. 94-2, H. Res. 1054, Mar. 3, 1976, p 5165-68.
      By resolutions considered as questions of the privileges of the 
  House, the committee has been directed:

     To investigate illegal solicitation of political contributions 
         in the House Office Buildings by unnamed sitting Members.
     To review GAO audits of the operations of the ``bank'' in the 
         Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
     To disclose the names and pertinent account information of 
         Members found to have abused the privileges of the ``House 
         bank.''
     To investigate violations of confidentiality by staff engaged 
         in the investigation of the operation and management of the 
         Office of the Postmaster.

  Manual Sec. 703.

                   Extensive Revision of Ethics Process

      In the 105th Congress the House adopted a resolution sponsored by 
  the chairman and ranking minority member of a bipartisan leadership 
  task force on reform of the ethics process. The resolution included 
  provisions amending the rules of the House as follows:

     Establishment of a ``pool'' of non-committee Members who may 
         be assigned to serve on investigative subcommittees, and 
         exclusion of service on such subcommittee from the limitation 
         on subcommittee service. Rule X clause 5.
     Requirement that a complaint placed on the committee agenda 
         before expiration of the time limit set forth in the rules of 
         the committee be referred to an investigative subcommittee only 
         by an affirmative vote of the members of the committee. Rule XI 
         clause 3.
     Change in the duration of service on the committee. Rule X 
         clause 5.

[[Page 497]]

     Requirement that each meeting be held in executive session 
         unless opened by an affirmative vote of a majority of the 
         members, and requirement that each adjudicatory subcommittee 
         hearing or full-committee sanction hearing be open unless 
         closed by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members. 
         Rule XI clause 3(c).
     Requirement of confidentiality oath by a Member, officer, or 
         employee having access to committee information. Rule XI clause 
         3(d).
     Exception for committee votes taken in executive session from 
         requirement that committees disclose record votes. Rule XIII 
         clause 3(b).
     Permission for a non-Member to file information offered as a 
         complaint only if a Member certifies the information is 
         submitted in good faith and warrants committee consideration. 
         Rule XI clause 3(b)(2)(B).
     Authority for the chairman and ranking minority member jointly 
         to appoint members from the ``pool'' to serve on an 
         investigative subcommittee. Rule X clause 5.
     Authority for the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
         committee jointly to gather preliminary additional information 
         with regard to a complaint or information offered as a 
         complaint. Rule XI clause 3(b)(1).
     Authority for a subcommittee to authorize and issue a subpoena 
         only by affirmative vote of a majority of its members. Rule XI 
         clause 2(m)(2).
     Authority for the committee to refer substantial evidence of a 
         violation of law to Federal or State authorities either with 
         approval of the House or by an affirmative vote of two-thirds 
         of the members of the committee. Rule XI clause 3(a)(3).
     Authority for the committee to take appropriate action in the 
         case of a frivolous complaint. Rule XI clause 3(e).

      The resolution also included provisions requiring the committee to 
  adopt the following committee rules (which were codified in rule XI 
  clause 3 in the 108th Congress):

     Guaranteeing the ranking minority member the right to place an 
         item on the agenda.
     Setting specified standards for staff, providing for 
         appointment of staff, permitting the retention of outside 
         counsel or temporary staff, and permitting both the chairman 
         and the ranking minority member one additional staff member.
     Permitting only the chairman or ranking minority member to 
         make public statements regarding matters before the committee, 
         unless otherwise determined by a vote of the committee.
     Providing the chairman and ranking minority member 14 calendar 
         days or five legislative days (whichever occurs first) to 
         determine whether information offered as a complaint 
         constitutes a complaint.

[[Page 498]]

     Granting the chairman and ranking minority member, unless 
         otherwise determined by an affirmative vote of the majority of 
         committee members, 45 calendar days or five legislative days 
         (whichever occurs later) after the date they determine the 
         information filed constitutes a complaint to: (1) recommend 
         disposition of the complaint; (2) establish an investigative 
         subcommittee; or (3) request an extension.
     Requiring the chairman and ranking minority member to 
         establish an investigative subcommittee to consider a complaint 
         not disposed of by the expiration of the time limit.
     Providing for disposal of information not constituting a 
         proper complaint.
     Setting parameters for the composition of investigative and 
         adjudicatory subcommittees.
     Establishing a standard of proof for the adoption of a 
         statement of alleged violation.
     Authorizing expansion of the scope of an investigation by an 
         investigative subcommittee upon an affirmative vote of a 
         majority of the members of the full committee.
     Authorizing an investigative subcommittee to amend its 
         statement of alleged violation any time before it is 
         transmitted to the committee and granting 30 calendar days for 
         a respondent to file an answer to the amended statement of 
         alleged violation.
     Establishing procedures to protect the due process rights of 
         respondents.
     Requiring the committee to transmit to the House upon an 
         affirmative vote of a majority of its members an investigative 
         subcommittee report that it did not adopt a statement of 
         alleged violation.
     Detailing a mode of proceeding upon an approved waiver of an 
         adjudicatory hearing, including committee reporting 
         requirements and opportunity for respondent views.
     Clarifying that, when the committee authorizes an 
         investigation on its own initiative, the chairman and ranking 
         minority member shall establish an investigative subcommittee.

   105-1, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p ____; Manual Sec. 806.


  Sec. 3 . -- Membership; Eligibility for Committee Service; 
            Disqualification

      The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, unlike other 
  standing committees of the House (where the majority party has a 
  preponderance of the elected membership), is composed of 10 members in 
  equal numbers from the majority and minority parties. Rule X clause 
  5(a)(3). Service on the committee also is limited to no more than 
  three Congresses in any 10-year period. However, a member of the 
  committee may serve during a fourth Congress as either the chairman or 
  the ranking minority member of the committee. Manual Sec. 759. At the 
  beginning of each Congress, the Speaker and the Minority Leader each 
  name 10 Members from their respec

[[Page 499]]

  tive parties who are not members of the committee to be available to 
  serve on investigative subcommittees during that Congress. Rule X 
  clause 5(a)(4).
      Rule XI clause 3(b)(4) provides that a member of the committee 
  shall be ineligible to participate in a committee proceeding relating 
  to his or her own conduct. Under this rule, where it was contended 
  that four members of the committee were ineligible to adjudicate a 
  complaint because of their personal involvement in the relevant 
  conduct, the Speaker named four other Members to act as members of the 
  committee in all proceedings on the complaint in the same political-
  party ratio represented by the party affiliation of the four 
  ineligible members. Manual Sec. 806.
      Rule XI clause 3(b)(5) permits a member of the committee to 
  disqualify himself from participation in any committee investigation 
  in which he certifies that he could not render an impartial decision 
  and authorizes the Speaker to appoint a replacement for that 
  investigation. Under this rule, where a member of the committee 
  submits an affidavit of disqualification in a disciplinary 
  investigation of another Member, or where a member of the committee is 
  himself the subject of an ethics inquiry and has notified the Speaker 
  of his ineligibility, the Speaker may appoint another Member to serve 
  on the committee during the investigation. Manual Sec. 806.


  Sec. 4 . -- Publications; Advisory Opinions

      Under rule XI clause 3(a)(4), the Committee on Standards of 
  Official Conduct is authorized to issue and publish advisory opinions 
  (also known as ``pink sheets'') with respect to the general propriety 
  of any current or proposed conduct. The committee's advisory opinions 
  are incorporated in the House Ethics Manual. The House Ethics Manual 
  also includes advisory opinions issued by the former Select Committee 
  on Ethics, which was established during the 95th Congress and was the 
  precursor of the present standing committee. More recent advisory 
  opinions may be found on the committee's website and include the 
  following:

     Salary Levels at which the Outside Earned Income Limitation, 
         Financial Disclosure Requirement, and Post-Employment 
         Restrictions Apply for Calendar Year 2003--January 16, 2003.
     Post-Employment and Related Restrictions for Staff--November 
         25, 2002.
     Post-Employment and Related Restrictions for Members and 
         Officers--November 25, 2002.
     Gift Rule Provisions on Meals, Entertainment and Recreational 
         Activities from Lobbyists--November 14, 2002.
     Applicability of the Financial Disclosure Reporting 
         Requirement, the Outside Employment and Earned Income 
         Restrictions, and the Post-Employment Restrictions to House 
         Employees--October 2, 2002.

[[Page 500]]

     Member Use of Campaign Funds to Pay Food and Beverage Expenses 
         at Events Sponsored by Their Office and Other Official House 
         Events--May 8, 2002.
     Member Office Activities in Areas Added by Redistricting--
         February 15, 2002.
     Olympics Tickets Under the Gift Rule--December 20, 2001.
     Classified Information Oath--October 12, 2001.
     Prohibition Against Private Subsidy of Conferences, Meetings 
         and Other Events Sponsored by a House Office--September 28, 
         2001.
     Rules and Standards of Conduct Applicable to Committee 
         Consultants--April 12, 2000.
     ``Lump Sum'' Payments to House Employees--October 15, 1999.
     Prohibition Against Linking Official Actions to Partisan or 
         Political Considerations, or Personal Gain--May 11, 1999.
     Employment Recommendations--October 1, 1998.
     Answers to the ``Top 20 Questions''--March 4, 1998.
     Outside Earned Income Restrictions on Members and Senior 
         Staff--February 23, 1998.
     Rules Governing (1) Solicitation by Members, Officers and 
         Employees in General, and (2) Political Fundraising Activity in 
         House Offices--April 25, 1997.
     Classified Information Oath--July 12, 1995.
     Revised Solicitation Guidelines--April 4, 1995.

      In addition to the House Ethics Manual, the committee published 
  the booklet Gifts and Travel in the 106th Congress and the booklet 
  Campaign Activity in the 107th Congress. Advisory opinions issued by 
  the committee also may be found in these publications and in the 
  appendix to Chapter 12 of Deschler's Precedents. Additional 
  information also is available electronically from the committee's 
  website.
      In accordance with section 803(i) of the Ethics Reform Act of 
  1989, the committee has established an Office of Advice and Education. 
  The primary responsibility of the office is to provide information and 
  guidance to Members, officers, and employees regarding all standards 
  of conduct that apply to them.


  Sec. 5 . Initiating an Investigation; Complaints

                                 Generally

      In addition to an investigation directed by House resolution, 
  called up as a question of the privileges of the House, an 
  investigation of particular conduct may be initiated pursuant to 
  adoption of a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules. See, 
  e.g., 96-2, H. Res. 608, Mar. 27, 1980, p 6995-98. A resolution 
  directing the committee to investigate a possible un

[[Page 501]]

  authorized disclosure of classified information by the Speaker in 
  violation of House rules was introduced through the hopper and 
  referred to the Committee on Rules. 100-2, Sept. 30, 1988, p 27329.
      Under rule XI clause 3(b)(1)(A), an investigation of particular 
  conduct also may be initiated by the Committee on Standards of 
  Official Conduct, if approved by a majority vote of the members of 
  that committee. An investigation also may be initiated pursuant to 
  information offered as a complaint filed with the committee by a 
  Member. A complaint may be filed by a non-Member if the complaint is 
  accompanied by a certification from a Member that the information is 
  submitted in good faith and warrants committee consideration. Rule XI 
  clause 3(b)(2); Manual Sec. 806.
      Under rule XI clause 3(b)(1), the chairman and ranking minority 
  member of the committee jointly may gather additional information 
  concerning alleged conduct that is the basis of a complaint until they 
  have established an investigative subcommittee or either of them has 
  placed on the agenda of the committee the issue of whether to 
  establish such subcommittee. Manual Sec. 806.

                 Complaint Requirements; Unfounded Charges

      Information offered as a complaint filed with the committee must 
  comply with the requirements of rule XI clause 3(b)(2), including the 
  requirement that it be in writing and under oath. Manual Sec. 806. 
  Each complaint received by the committee is examined to determine 
  whether it complies with that rule. Complaints that are not in 
  compliance are returned. Those that comply with the rule are 
  considered by the committee for appropriate disposition.
      Under rule XI clause 3(e)(1), a complaint determined by the 
  Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to be frivolous may give 
  rise to action by that committee. A Member who presented false charges 
  against another Member has himself become the subject of a select 
  committee investigation and report. In 1908 the House adopted a 
  resolution approving a select committee report finding a Member in 
  contempt and in violation of his obligations as a Member where he had 
  presented false charges of corruption against another Member. 6 Cannon 
  Sec. 400.

                                Disclosure

      Rule XI clause 3(b)(6) requires a vote of the Committee on 
  Standards of Official Conduct to authorize the public disclosure of 
  the content of a complaint or the fact of its filing.

[[Page 502]]

                                  Debate

      References in floor debate to the content of a complaint or the 
  fact of its filing are governed by the rules of decorum in debate 
  under rule XVII clause 1. Under this stricture a Member should refrain 
  from references in debate to the official conduct of a Member where 
  such conduct is not the subject then pending before the House by way 
  of either a report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
  or another question of the privileges of the House. This stricture 
  also precludes a Member from reciting news articles discussing a 
  Member's conduct, reciting the content of a previously tabled 
  resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House, or even 
  referring to a Member's conduct by mere insinuation.
      The fact that a complaint has been filed does not open up its 
  allegations to debate on the floor. Notice of an intention to offer a 
  resolution as a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX 
  does not render a resolution ``pending'' and thereby permit references 
  to the conduct of a Member proposed to be addressed therein. Manual 
  Sec. 361.


  Sec. 6 . Persons Subject to Disciplinary Procedures

      The investigative authority that is given under rule XI clause 
  3(a)(1) to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct over alleged 
  violations extends to ``Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, 
  officers, and employees of the House.'' Manual Sec. 806. The Speaker 
  has been subject to the investigative authority of this committee. 
  101-1, Statement of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct In 
  re Wright, Apr. 17, 1989; H. Res. 31, H. Rept. 105-1, In re Gingrich, 
  Jan. 21, 1997, p 459. A Delegate has been subject to censure for 
  misconduct. 2 Hinds Sec. 1305. With respect to violations by House 
  officers or employees, the rules of the committee authorize it to 
  recommend to the House dismissal from employment, fine, or any other 
  sanction determined by the committee to be appropriate. Rule 25, Rules 
  of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 107th Cong.
      On one occasion, the House, by adopting a resolution presented as 
  a question of privilege (dealing with the unauthorized disclosure of a 
  House report), authorized the Committee on Standards of Official 
  Conduct to investigate persons not associated with the House. 94-2, H. 
  Res. 1042, Feb. 19, 1976, p 3914. The House considered it necessary to 
  enlarge the subpoena authority of the committee to carry out this 
  investigation. 94-2, H. Res. 1054, Mar. 3, 1976, p 5165. Private 
  citizens have been censured or reprimanded by the Speaker at the bar 
  of the House for attempting to bribe a Member or for assaulting a 
  Member. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1606, 1616-1619, 1625; 6 Cannon Sec. 333.

[[Page 503]]

      Under rule XI clause 3(a)(3), the committee may report to the 
  appropriate Federal or State authorities, either with the approval of 
  the House or by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of 
  the committee, any substantial evidence of a violation of a law by a 
  Member, officer, or employee of the House that is applicable to the 
  performance of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities 
  that may have been disclosed in a committee investigation.


                      B. Basis for Imposing Sanctions


  Sec. 7 . In General; The Code of Official Conduct

                                 Generally

      Before the 90th Congress, there was no formal code of conduct for 
  Representatives. However, in 1968 the rules were amended to establish 
  a Code of Official Conduct for Members and employees of the House. 90-
  1, H. Res. 1049, Apr. 3, 1968, p 8803; rule XXIII. The Code, along 
  with rules XXIV through XXV, contain provisions governing the receipt 
  of compensation, gifts, and honoraria. It also addresses the use of 
  campaign funds, proscribes discrimination in employment, and bars 
  certain ``non-House'' uses of House stationery. Manual Sec. Sec. 1095-
  1102.

                 Conduct Reflecting Discredit on the House

      Under the Code of Official Conduct, disciplinary measures may be 
  invoked against a Member, officer, or employee on the ground that he 
  has violated the requirement in clause 1 of the Code of Official 
  Conduct that he behave ``at all times'' in a manner that reflects 
  ``creditably'' on the House. Manual Sec. 1095. Examples of 
  disciplinary measures recommended by the Committee on Standards of 
  Official Conduct against certain Members for conduct that violated 
  clause 1 of the Code include:

     Failure to report campaign contributions, and perjury. These 
         Members were officially reprimanded by the House. H. Res. 1415, 
         H. Rept. 95-1742, In re McFall, Oct. 13, 1978, p 37005; H. Res. 
         1416, H. Rept. 95-1743, In re Roybal, Oct. 13, 1978, p 37009.
     Conviction by a jury on bribery or other corruption charges. 
         Member was expelled by the House. H. Res. 794, H. Rept. 96-
         1387, In re Myers, Oct. 2, 1980, p 28953; H. Res. 495, H. Rept. 
         107-594, In re Traficant, July 24, 2002, p ____.
     Misuse of the congressional clerk-hire allowance for personal 
         gain. Member was censured by the House by a unanimous vote and 
         was required to make restitution of monies in the amount that 
         he had personally benefited. H. Res. 378, H. Rept. 96-351, In 
         re Diggs, July 31, 1979, p 21584.

[[Page 504]]

     Engagement in sexual relationships with pages employed by the 
         House. Although the committee recommended that both Members be 
         reprimanded, the House voted to censure. H. Res. 265, H. Rept. 
         98-295, In re Studds, July 20, 1983, p 20030; H. Res. 266, H. 
         Rept. 98-296, In re Crane, July 20, 1983, p 20020.

      The committee may find that a Member has brought discredit to the 
  House, but recommend no formal sanction. H. Rept. 104-876, In re 
  Collins; H. Rept. 105-797, In re Kim. The committee also may send the 
  offending Member a letter of reproval. H. Rept. 106-979, In re 
  Shuster.
      The House voted to reprimand the Speaker for bringing discredit on 
  the House. H. Res. 31, H. Rept. 105-1, In re Gingrich, Jan. 21, 1997, 
  p 393.

            Adhering to the ``Spirit and Letter'' of the Rules

      Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct provides that a Member, 
  officer, or employee of the House must ``adhere to the spirit and the 
  letter'' of the rules of the House and to the rules of its committees. 
  Manual Sec. 1095. This rule has been interpreted to mean that a Member 
  or employee may not do indirectly what the Member or employee would be 
  barred from doing directly. Advisory Opinion No. 4, Select Committee 
  on Ethics, 95th Cong.
      In 1988 the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct concluded 
  that a Member's acceptance of an illegal gratuity on three occasions 
  constituted action that discredited the House as an institution in 
  violation of rule XXIII clause 1; and, having violated the ``spirit'' 
  of clause 1, he also violated rule XXIII clause 2. H. Rept. 100-506, 
  In re Biaggi. Although purposeful violation of any rule of the House 
  could potentially be considered an infraction under rule XXIII clause 
  2, the committee has issued advisory opinions touching on some of the 
  rules that specifically pertain to Members' conduct. In addition to 
  the restrictions contained in the Code of Conduct, rules XXIV 
  (Limitations on Use of Official Funds), XXV (Limitations on Outside 
  Earned Income and Acceptance of Gifts), and XXVI (Financial 
  Disclosure) have been addressed by the committee in its House Ethics 
  Manual and its booklets entitled Gifts and Travel and Campaign 
  Activity.


  Sec. 8 . Code of Ethics for Government Service

      A Code of Ethics to be adhered to by all government employees, 
  including office holders, was adopted by concurrent resolution in 
  1958. 85-2, H. Con. Res. 175, July 11, 1958; 85-2; House Ethics 
  Manual, 102d Cong. This Code requires that any person in government 
  service should, among other things, give a full day's labor for a full 
  day's pay; never accept favors or benefits under circumstances that 
  ``might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the 
  performance of his governmental duties;''

[[Page 505]]

  engage in no business with the government, either directly or 
  indirectly, that is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of 
  his governmental duties; and never use any information coming to him 
  confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of 
  making a private profit.
      The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has indicated that 
  the Code of Ethics is an expression of traditional standards of 
  conduct that continues to be applicable, even though the Code was 
  enacted merely in the form of a concurrent resolution that expired 
  with the adjournment of the Congress in which it was adopted. H. Rept. 
  94-1364, In re Sikes.
      The ethical standards of this Code have provided the basis for 
  disciplinary proceedings against Members. E.g., H. Rept. 100-506, In 
  re Biaggi. In one instance, charges concerning the use of a Member's 
  official position for pecuniary gain were heard by the committee. The 
  committee found that the Member had failed to report his ownership of 
  certain stock and that he bought stock in a bank following active 
  efforts in his official capacity to obtain a charter for the bank. 
  These charges resulted in a reprimand of the Member. H. Res. 1421, H. 
  Rept. 94-1364, In re Sikes, July 29, 1976, p 24379.


  Sec. 9 . Violations of Statutes

                                 Generally

      The Members of Congress, unless immunized by the Speech or Debate 
  Clause of the Constitution, are subject to the same penalties under 
  the criminal laws as are all citizens. Manual Sec. 93; Deschler Ch 12 
  Sec. 3. In addition to rules XXIII through XXVI, the Federal criminal 
  code addresses the conduct of Members, officers, and employees with 
  respect to bribery of public officials (18 USC Sec. 201), claims 
  against the Government (18 USC Sec. Sec. 203-205, 207(e), 216), and 
  public officials acting as agents of foreign principals (18 USC 
  Sec. 219). The violation of such statutes may be considered by the 
  Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in recommending 
  disciplinary actions to the House.
      Thus, a Member's conviction under section 201 of title 18, United 
  States Code, of accepting an illegal gratuity was cited as one of the 
  grounds for the committee's recommendation that the Member be 
  expelled. H. Rept. 100-506, In re Biaggi. The committee may find that 
  a Member has violated certain statutes but recommend no formal 
  sanction. H. Rept. 104-876, In re Collins; H. Rept. 105-797, In re 
  Kim. The committee also may send the offending Member a letter of 
  reproval. H. Rept. 106-979, In re Shuster. The House voted to 
  reprimand a Speaker for violating certain provisions of the

[[Page 506]]

  Internal Revenue Code. 105-1, H. Res. 31, H. Rept. 105-1, In re 
  Gingrich, Jan. 21, 1997, p 393.
      Any disciplinary measure that the House invokes against a Member 
  for an alleged or proven violation of such a statute is separate and 
  distinct from sanctions that may be sought by law enforcement 
  authorities at the State or Federal level. Criminal prosecution may 
  precede or follow committee investigation or House censure for the 
  same offense. See United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988 (D.C. Cir. 
  1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980); H. Res. 378, H. Rept. 96-
  351, In re Diggs, July 31, 1979, p 21584.
      Rule XI clause 3 authorizes the Committee on Standards of Official 
  Conduct to report to the appropriate Federal or State authorities, by 
  majority vote with the approval of the House or by two-thirds vote of 
  the committee alone, any substantial evidence of a violation of an 
  applicable law by a Member, officer, or employee of the House, that 
  may have been disclosed in a committee investigation. Manual Sec. 806. 
  During the committee's investigation of Speaker Gingrich, the 
  committee received documents that may have proved useful to the 
  Internal Revenue Service. The House adopted the recommendation of the 
  committee to make those documents available to the Internal Revenue 
  Service and to establish a liaison to aid the transfer of documents. 
  H. Res. 31, H. Rept. 105-1, In re Gingrich, Jan. 21, 1997, p 393.

                 Conviction as Basis for Committee Action

      Rule 19(e) of the rules of the Committee on Standards of Official 
  Conduct requires the committee to undertake an investigation with 
  regard to any felony conviction of a Member, officer, or employee of 
  the House in a Federal, State, or local court. The rule further 
  provides that the investigation may proceed at any time before 
  sentencing. See, e.g., H. Rept. 107-594, In re Traficant. The 
  committee may review evidence presented at the Member's trial, 
  including the trial transcript, transcripts of recorded phone 
  conversations, and oral intercepts. H. Rept. 100-506, In re Biaggi. 
  Examples of disciplinary measures recommended by the Committee on 
  Standards of Official Conduct based on criminal convictions include 
  bribery convictions or findings as to the receipt of money by a Member 
  for exercising his influence in the House. H. Rept. 96-1387, In re 
  Myers; H. Rept. 96-856, In re Flood; H. Rept. 96-1537, In re Jenrette; 
  H. Rept. 97-110, In re Lederer; H. Rept. 100-506, In re Biaggi; H. 
  Rept. 107-594, In re Traficant.
      In 1980, charges involving alleged bribes of Members of Congress 
  led to investigations by both the Committee on Standards of Official 
  Conduct and the Department of Justice. The committee was authorized to 
  conduct an inquiry into such alleged improper conduct, to coordinate 
  its investigation with the Justice Department, to enter into 
  agreements with the Justice De

[[Page 507]]

  partment, and to participate, by special counsel, in any judicial 
  proceeding concerning or relating to the inquiry. 96-2, H. Res. 608, 
  Mar. 27, 1980, p 6995; 97-1, H. Res. 67, Mar. 4, 1981, p 3529.
      The House may choose to initiate disciplinary proceedings against 
  a Member upon a Member's conviction even when that Member has not 
  exhausted all of his appeals in the criminal process. See Sec. 19, 
  infra.


  Sec. 10 . Misuse of Hiring Allowance; False Claims

      Rule XXIII clause 8 prohibits a Member from retaining anyone under 
  his payroll authority who does not perform duties commensurate with 
  the compensation he receives. Closely related to this rule is the 
  False Claims Act, which imposes liability on persons making claims 
  against the government knowing such claims to be false or fraudulent. 
  31 USC Sec. 3729; 18 USC Sec. 287. Because a Member must formally 
  authorize salary payments to his aides, he may be found to have 
  violated Federal law if he knows that such payments are being made to 
  an aide who is not doing official work commensurate with such pay, or 
  if he is drawing on clerk-hire funds to meet his own personal or 
  congressional expenses. See United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988 (D.C. 
  Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980). The False Claims Act is 
  applicable where a Member submits false travel vouchers to the Clerk 
  of the House. See U.S. ex rel. Hollander v. Clay, 420 F. Supp. 853 
  (D.D.C. 1976). Liability under the Act likewise arises where a Member 
  has falsely certified certain long-distance phone calls as being 
  official calls in order to obtain reimbursement for them. United 
  States v. Eilberg, 507 F. Supp. 267 (E.D. Pa. 1980).


  Sec. 11 . Discrimination in Employment

      Rule XXIII clause 9 includes provisions barring discrimination 
  against any individual with respect to compensation or other 
  conditions of employment because of such individual's race, color, 
  religion, sex, handicap, age, or national origin. The Committee on 
  Standards of Official Conduct has concluded that sexual harassment is 
  a form of discrimination in employment that is prohibited by clause 9. 
  In one case the committee issued a letter of reproval to a Member for 
  his conduct in interacting with two female employees on his staff. H. 
  Rept. 101-293, In re Bates.
      The earliest form of the rule on ``employment practices''grew out 
  of the Fair Employment Practices Resolution first adopted in the 100th 
  Congress. 100-2, H. Res. 558, Oct. 3, 1988, p 27840; 101-1, H. Res. 
  15, Jan. 3, 1989, p 85. The terms of that resolution were incorporated 
  by reference in a standing in the 102d Congress. 102-1, H. Res. 5, 
  Jan. 3, 1991, p 39.

[[Page 508]]

   It was codified in full text, with certain amendments, in the 103d 
  Congress. 103-1, H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p 49. The Employment 
  Practices rule was overtaken by the earliest form of a rule addressing 
  the ``application of certain laws,'' in the 103d Congress. 103-2, H. 
  Res. 578, Oct. 7, 1994, p 29326. The Application of Laws rule, in 
  turn, was overtaken by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. 2 
  USC Sec. 1301. Certain savings provisions appear in section 506 of 
  that Act. 2 USC Sec. 1435.


  Sec. 12 . Campaign Fund Irregularities

      Members of the House are governed by many restrictions and 
  regulations concerning the use of campaign funds and must comply with 
  various campaign finance procedures. These requirements are found 
  primarily in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. 2 USC 
  Sec. 431. Under this statute, the Federal Election Commission was 
  established as an independent regulatory agency with jurisdiction over 
  Federal campaign finance practices. 2 USC Sec. Sec. 437c-438.
      Rule XXIII clause 6 requires that Members use campaign funds 
  solely for campaign purposes and specifically prohibits the personal 
  use of such funds. This includes the requirements that Members keep 
  campaign funds separate from personal funds; may not convert campaign 
  funds to personal use except for reimbursement for legitimate, 
  verifiable prior campaign expenses; and may not expend campaign funds 
  for other than bona fide campaign or political purposes. The committee 
  has taken the position that any use of campaign funds that personally 
  benefits the Member rather than exclusively and solely benefiting the 
  campaign is not a ``bona fide campaign purpose.'' H. Rept. 99-933, In 
  re Weaver; H. Rept. 100-526, In re Rose. Although campaign funds may 
  be invested, a candidate who borrows money from his own campaign is 
  presumed to be receiving a personal benefit; that is, the use of the 
  money.
      The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has found that 
  Members have violated rule XXIII clause 6 by transferring campaign 
  funds to personal accounts or borrowing from their campaign funds. 
  See, e.g., H. Rept. 96-930, In re Wilson; H. Rept. 99-933, In re 
  Weaver.
      The House has adopted reports of the committee recommending 
  reprimand of Members who have failed to report a campaign contribution 
  or have converted a campaign contribution to personal use See, e.g., 
  H. Res. 1415, H. Rept. 95-1742, In re McFall, Oct. 13, 1978, p 37005; 
  H. Res. 1416, H. Rept. 95-1743, In re Roybal, Oct. 13, 1978, p 37009. 
  In two cases, Members were found to have violated Federal election 
  campaign

[[Page 509]]

  laws, but no formal sanctions were issued. H. Rept. 104-876, In re 
  Collins; H. Rept. 105-797, In re Kim.
      Rule XXIII clause 7 requires any proceeds from testimonials or 
  other fund-raising events to be treated by Members as campaign 
  contributions. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has 
  compiled a complete statement of the rules on campaign funds, which 
  supersedes chapter 8 of the 1992 House Ethics Manual, entitled 
  Campaign Activity, 107th Cong.


  Sec. 13 . Solicitation of Contributions From Government Employees

      A Federal statute prohibits Members of Congress (and candidates 
  for Congress) from soliciting political contributions from employees 
  of the House and from other Federal government employees. 18 USC 
  Sec. 602. Under this statute it must actually be known that the person 
  who is being solicited is a Federal employee. Inadvertent 
  solicitations to persons on a mailing list during a general fund-
  raising campaign are not prohibited. H. Rept. 96-930, In re Wilson. 
  Because the statute by its terms is directed at protecting 
  ``employees,'' it does not prevent one Member from soliciting another 
  Member. See 6 Cannon Sec. 401 (in which the House adopted a resolution 
  construing the predecessor statute).
      In 1985, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct initiated 
  a preliminary investigation into charges that a ``Dear Colleague'' 
  letter had been used to solicit Members' staffs in House office 
  buildings. However, the committee took the view that the statute was 
  directed against coercive activities; that is, political 
  ``shakedowns.'' The committee concluded that, in the absence of any 
  evidence of ``victimization'' (i.e., coercion of congressional staff) 
  the solicitations were not precluded by that law. H. Rept. 99-277. The 
  committee concluded, however, that neither staff (paid or volunteer) 
  while on official time, nor Federal office space at any time, should 
  be used to prepare or distribute material involving solicitations of 
  political contributions. H. Rept. 99-227; see also H. Rept. 99-1019.


  Sec. 14 . Limitations on Earned Income; Honoraria

      Rule XXV clause 1 places restrictions upon the amount of outside-
  earned income a Member, officer, or employee may receive. This 
  provision limits the amount of aggregate outside-earned income in a 
  calendar year to 15 percent of an annual congressional salary. The 
  limitation applies to earned income for personal services, rather than 
  monies that are essentially a return on equity. In this regard, the 
  facts of a particular case will be regarded as controlling, rather 
  than the characterization of such monies as out

[[Page 510]]

  side-earned income. Advisory Opinion No. 13, Select Committee on 
  Ethics, 95th Cong. (reprinted in H. Rept. 95-1837).
      Under rule XXV clause 3, a Member, officer, or employee may 
  receive neither an advance payment on copyright royalties nor 
  copyright royalties under a contract unless it is first approved by 
  the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as complying with the 
  requirement that the royalties are received from an established 
  publisher under usual and customary contractual terms.
      A restriction against honoraria is imposed by rule XXV clause 1. 
  In 1989 special outside counsel concluded that Speaker Wright had 
  retained excessive honoraria and other outside income, styled as 
  ``royalties,'' which he accepted from special interest groups from the 
  sale of his book. 101-1, Statement of the Committee on Standards of 
  Official Conduct In re Wright, Apr. 17, 1989.


  Sec. 15 . Acceptance of Gifts

      Rule XXV clause 5 permits acceptance of a gift only if it has an 
  individual value of less than $50 and a cumulative value from any one 
  source in the calendar year of less than $100 (the value of perishable 
  food sent to an office is allocated among the individual recipients 
  and not to the Member). Clause 5 defines the term ``gift'' and 
  outlines various exceptions to the rule. The Committee on Standards of 
  Official Conduct in the 96th Congress recommended the censure of a 
  Member for misconduct that included the acceptance of gifts of money 
  from a person with a ``direct interest in legislation'' before 
  Congress. The committee determined that certain checks that had been 
  marked ``loans'' were not true loans. On the basis of this and other 
  violations, the House, after rejecting a motion to recommit that would 
  have permitted a reprimand, voted to censure. H. Res. 660, H. Rept. 
  96-930, In re Wilson, June 10, 1980, p 13801. In 1988 the committee 
  concluded that a Member's acceptance of illegal gratuities in trips to 
  St. Maarten and Florida established per se violations of the gift rule 
  since those events, both individually and in the aggregate, far 
  exceeded the $100 limit then imposed by the gift rule. H. Rept. 100-
  506, In re Biaggi.
      In 1977 the committee was empowered to investigate the alleged 
  receipt by Members of ``things of value'' from the Korean government. 
  95-1, H. Res. 252, Feb. 9, 1977, p 3966. Subsequently, the House 
  adopted a committee report recommending the reprimand of a Member on 
  the basis of the committee's finding that he had failed to disclose, 
  in a questionnaire sent to all Members by the committee, his receipt 
  of currency and valuables

[[Page 511]]

  worth more than $100 from representatives of Korea. H. Res. 1414, H. 
  Rept. 95-1741, In re Wilson, Oct. 13, 1978, p 36976.
      The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has compiled a 
  complete statement of the rules on gifts and travel. The new 
  compilation supersedes chapter 2 of the 1992 House Ethics Manual, 
  entitled Gifts and Travel, 106th Cong.


  Sec. 16 . Financial Disclosure

      Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires Members, 
  officers, and certain employees of the House to file an annual 
  Financial Disclosure Statement. 5 USC App Sec. Sec. 101-111. This law, 
  which is incorporated into House rule XXVI, was intended to regulate 
  and monitor possible conflicts of interest due to outside financial 
  holdings. Manual Sec. 1103.
      In the 94th Congress the House reprimanded a Member for certain 
  conduct occurring during prior Congresses, which included failure to 
  make proper financial disclosures. H. Res. 1421, H. Rept. 94-1364, In 
  re Sikes, July 29, 1976, p 24379. The Committee on Standards of 
  Official Conduct has concluded that a Member accepted certain gifts 
  that were subject to mandatory disclosure under the Ethics in 
  Government Act. H. Rept. 100-506, In re Biaggi; H. Rept. 105-797, In 
  re Kim.


  Sec. 17 . Professional Practice Restrictions

      Members are subject to various restrictions relating to their 
  professional affiliations while serving in the House. Thus, Members 
  are prohibited from receiving compensation for legal services before 
  agencies of the Federal government. Rule XXV clause 2; 18 USC 
  Sec. 205. Under this rule, Members, officers, and certain senior 
  employees may not:

     Receive compensation from affiliation with a firm providing 
         professional services for compensation that involve a fiduciary 
         relationship except for the practice of medicine.
     Permit their names to be used by any such firm or other 
         entity.
     Practice a profession for compensation that involves a 
         fiduciary relationship except for the practice of medicine.
     Serve for compensation on the board of directors of any 
         association, corporation, or other entity.
     Receive compensation for teaching without prior notification 
         and approval.

  Manual Sec. 1099.

[[Page 512]]

  Sec. 18 . Acts Committed in Prior Congress or Before Becoming a Member

      Under rule XI clause 3(b)(3), the Committee on Standards of 
  Official Conduct may not investigate an alleged violation of a law, 
  rule, regulation, or standard of conduct that was not in effect at the 
  time of the alleged violation. Also excepted from investigation are 
  alleged violations that occurred before the third previous Congress 
  unless the committee determines that such matters were directly 
  related to an alleged violation that occurred in a more recent 
  Congress. Manual Sec. 806.
      Historically, it has been within the prerogative of the House to 
  censure a Member for misconduct occurring in a prior Congress, 
  notwithstanding his reelection. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16. However, the 
  question whether the offense was known to his constituency at the time 
  of his election is a factor to be considered. 2 Hinds Sec. 1286. Thus, 
  in 1976 the House adopted the recommendation of the committee that a 
  Member be reprimanded for certain conduct occurring during prior 
  Congresses that involved financial irregularities but declined to 
  recommend punishment for prior conflict-of-interest conduct that had 
  occurred in 1961, where such conduct had apparently been known to a 
  constituency that had continually reelected him. H. Res. 1421, H. 
  Rept. 94-1364, In re Sikes, July 29, 1976, p 24379.
      The House has asserted jurisdiction under article I, section 5 of 
  the Constitution to inquire into the misconduct of a Member occurring 
  before his last election and to impose at least those sanctions short 
  of expulsion. H. Res. 378, H. Rept. 96-351, In re Diggs, July 31, 
  1979, p 21584; 2 Hinds Sec. 1283. In one case, the committee 
  investigated violations of Federal election laws that allegedly 
  occurred before the respondent became a Member. H. Rept. 105-797, In 
  re Kim.
      Expulsion thus far has been applied to Members only with respect 
  to offenses occurring during their terms of office and not to action 
  taken by them before their election. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 13. A 
  resolution calling for the expulsion of a Member was reported 
  adversely by the committee and tabled by the House, where the Member 
  had been convicted of bribery under California law for acts occurring 
  while he served as a county tax assessor and before his election to 
  the House. The committee found that although the conviction related to 
  moral turpitude, it did not relate to official conduct while a Member 
  of Congress. H. Res. 1392, H. Rept. 94-1478, In re Hinshaw, Sept. 8, 
  1976, p 29274, Oct. 1, 1976, p 35111.
      If a Member's term of office expires before a pending resolution 
  of expulsion against him is adopted, the proceedings are discontinued. 
  2 Hinds Sec. 1276.

[[Page 513]]

               C. Nature and Forms of Disciplinary Measures


  Sec. 19 . In General

                      Kinds of Disciplinary Measures

      The primary disciplinary measures that may be invoked by the House 
  against a Member include expulsion, censure or reprimand, fines or 
  other economic sanctions (such as reimbursement of the investigative 
  costs of the committee), and deprivation of seniority or committee 
  status.
      Reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, censure is 
  appropriate for more-serious violations, and expulsion of a Member is 
  appropriate for the most-serious violations. Rule 25(g), Rules of the 
  Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 107th Cong.
      Generally, the type of disciplinary measure invoked will depend on 
  the nature of the offense charged. Where there are mitigating 
  circumstances, the committee sometimes issues a public letter of 
  reproval. See, e.g., H. Rept. 100-526, In re Rose; H. Rept. 106-979, 
  In re Shuster. This letter may include a direction to the Member that 
  he apologize. H. Rept. 101-293, In re Bates. The House itself may 
  extract an apology from the offending Member. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1650, 
  1657.

      Effect of Court Conviction or Pendency of Judicial Proceedings

      Under a former practice, where a Member had been convicted of a 
  crime, the House would defer taking disciplinary action until the 
  judicial processes had been exhausted. 6 Cannon Sec. 238. Under the 
  more recent practice, the House may choose--as it did in the 96th and 
  107th Congresses--to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a 
  Member for conduct even when that Member has not exhausted all of his 
  appeals in the criminal process. H. Res. 378, H. Rept. 96-351, In re 
  Diggs, July 31, 1979, p 21584; H. Res. 495, H. Rept. 107-594, In re 
  Traficant, July 24, 2002. p ____. Although a criminal conviction may 
  be appealed, such a course of action and its outcome have no bearing 
  on either the timing or the nature of the decision reached by the 
  House. H. Rept. 100-506, In re Biaggi.
      Rule XXIII clause 10 provides that a Member who is convicted of a 
  crime for which a prison sentence of two or more years could be 
  imposed should refrain from committee business and from voting in the 
  House until judicial or executive proceedings reinstate the Member's 
  presumption of innocence or until he is reelected to the House after 
  his conviction. Manual Sec. 1095.

[[Page 514]]

                          Resolutions and Reports

      A resolution proposing disciplinary action against a Member may be 
  called up in the House as a question of privilege. Manual Sec. 703; 2 
  Hinds Sec. 1254; 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2648-2651. Where the Committee on 
  Standards of Official Conduct after investigation recommends that 
  disciplinary action be taken against a Member by the House, it 
  normally files a privileged report with a form of resolution proposing 
  the action. However, where the committee finds an allegation without 
  merit or issues a lesser sanction, such as a letter of reproval, the 
  committee files its report for the information of the House without an 
  accompanying resolution. Where a Member is defeated (including in a 
  primary), the committee may report violations to the House at the end 
  of the Congress without recommending sanctions. H. Rept. 105-797, In 
  re Kim.
      Under rule XI clause 3(a), the committee may recommend to the 
  House from time to time such administrative actions as it may consider 
  appropriate to establish or enforce standards of official conduct. 
  However, a letter of reproval or other administrative action of the 
  committee that resulted from an investigation under clause 3(a)(2) may 
  be implemented only as a part of its report to the House. The rule 
  also requires that the committee report to the House on the final 
  disposition of any case it has voted to investigate. Manual Sec. 806.
      A resolution adopting a committee report may be offered as 
  follows:

      Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the report by 
    the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated __________ in 
    the matter of Representative __________.

                         Consideration and Debate

      A disciplinary resolution presents a question of privilege. Manual 
  Sec. 66. If reported by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
  (or a derivation thereof), a disciplinary resolution may be called up 
  at any time after the committee has filed its report. Manual Sec. 66. 
  An unreported resolution may be called up by any Member as privileged 
  under rule IX with proper notice (or by the Majority or Minority 
  Leader without notice). Manual Sec. 703; 3 Hinds Sec. 2649.
      Rule IV clause 2(a)(16) permits an accused Member to be 
  accompanied by counsel on the floor of the House when the committee's 
  recommendation on his case is under consideration by the House. Manual 
  Sec. 678.
      Debate on a disciplinary resolution reported by the committee is 
  under the hour rule, the chairman of the committee being recognized 
  for the entire hour. 8 Cannon Sec. 2448; Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16. 
  Debate on a resolution raising

[[Page 515]]

  a question of the privileges of the House (which may include a 
  disciplinary resolution) offered from the floor under rule IX also is 
  debatable for one hour but the hour is equally divided between the 
  proponent and the Majority Leader or Minority Leader. Manual Sec. 713.
      The manager of a disciplinary resolution may yield time to the 
  Member charged to speak or to yield in his behalf. 107-2, July 24, 
  2002, p ____. In one instance the Member charged, after declining to 
  speak, yielded all of his time to another Member. 96-1, July 31, 1979, 
  p 21584.
      A Member whose expulsion is proposed may be permitted to present a 
  written defense. 2 Hinds Sec. 1273. However, if the previous question 
  is moved on a proposition to censure, the effect may be to prevent the 
  Member charged from making an explanation or presenting a defense. 
  After the House has voted to censure, it is too late for the Member to 
  be heard. 2 Hinds Sec. 1259; 5 Hinds Sec. 5459.
      Debate on a pending privileged resolution recommending 
  disciplinary action against a Member necessarily may involve 
  personalities. However, rule XVII clause 1 still prohibits the use of 
  language that is personally abusive or profane. During the actual 
  pendency of such a resolution, a Member may discuss a prior case 
  reported to the House by the Committee on Standards of Official 
  Conduct for the purpose of comparing the severity of the sanction 
  recommended in that case with the severity of the sanction recommended 
  in the pending case, provided that the Member does not identify, or 
  discuss the details of the past conduct of, a sitting Member. Manual 
  Sec. 361.
      The Speaker also has advised that Members should refrain from 
  references in debate to the motivations of a Member who filed a 
  complaint before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to 
  personal criticism of a member of the committee, and to an 
  investigation undertaken by the committee, including the suggestion of 
  a course of action or the advocacy of an interim status report by the 
  committee. Manual Sec. 361.
      Because an accurate record of disciplinary proceedings is 
  important, the House may agree by unanimous consent to ban revisions 
  or extensions of remarks delivered during the floor debate. Compare 
  96-2, May 29, 1980, p 12661, with 107-2, July 24, 2002, p ____ 
  (general leave granted).
      It is for the House and not the Speaker to judge the conduct of 
  Members. It is, accordingly, not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask 
  the Chair to interpret the application of a criminal statute to a 
  Member's conduct. Manual Sec. 1095.

[[Page 516]]

                           Effect of Resignation

      The resignation of a Member at a time when expulsion proceedings 
  against him are pending generally results in the suspension or 
  discontinuance of the proceedings. 2 Hinds Sec. 1275; 6 Cannon 
  Sec. 238. Similarly, where a Member resigns after a committee of 
  investigation has found him guilty of improper conduct and deserving 
  of censure, the House may discontinue the proceeding. 6 Cannon 
  Sec. 398. However, the House may adopt a resolution censuring his 
  conduct even after his resignation has been submitted. 2 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 1239, 1273, 1275.


  Sec. 20 . Expulsion

      The House has the power under the Constitution to expel a Member 
  by a two-thirds vote. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2. The 
  discretionary power of the House to expel one of its Members has been 
  said to be unlimited. 6 Cannon Sec. 78. However, the House has 
  consistently refused to expel a Member for acts unrelated to him as a 
  Member or to his public trust and duty. H. Rept. 56-85; 1 Hinds 
  Sec. 476. In 1976 an expulsion resolution was reported adversely and 
  tabled by the House where a Member had been convicted of bribery under 
  State law for acts occurring before his election to the House, because 
  the conviction did not relate to his official conduct while a Member 
  of Congress. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 13.1.
      The power to expel extends to all cases where the offense is such 
  as to be inconsistent with the trust and duty of the Member. In re 
  Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 669 (1897). The purpose of expulsion is not 
  merely to provide punishment but also to remove a Member whose 
  character and conduct show that he is unfit to participate in the 
  deliberations and decisions of the House and whose presence in it 
  tends to bring that body into contempt and disgrace. 2 Hinds 
  Sec. 1286. The fundamental governing consideration underlying 
  expulsion proceedings is whether the individual charged has displayed 
  conduct inconsistent with the trust and duty of a Member. In re 
  Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 669 (1897).
      The House has considered proposals to expel on many occasions. 
  Expulsion was used during the Civil War against three Members charged 
  with being in rebellion against the United States or with having taken 
  up arms against it. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1261, 1262. More recently, the 
  House expelled a Member who had been convicted in a Federal court of 
  bribery and conspiracy in accepting funds to perform official duties. 
  H. Res. 794, H. Rept. 96-1387, In re Myers, Oct. 2, 1980, p 28953. The 
  Committee on Standards of Official Conduct recommended the expulsion 
  of two Members who had, among other acts of misconduct, accepted 
  illegal gratuities. H. Rept. 97-

[[Page 517]]

  110, In re Lederer; H. Rept. 100-506, In re Biaggi. Both cases 
  terminated with the Members' resignations.
      In 2002 the House expelled a Member for illegal activities that 
  resulted in Federal criminal convictions including (1) trading 
  official acts and influence for things of value; (2) demanding and 
  accepting salary kickbacks from his congressional employees; (3) 
  influencing a congressional employee to destroy evidence and to 
  provide false testimony to a Federal grand jury; (4) receiving 
  personal labor and the services of his congressional employees while 
  they were being paid by the taxpayers to perform public service; and 
  (5) filing false income tax returns. H. Res. 495, H. Rept. 107-594, In 
  re Traficant, July 24, 2002, p ____.
      Following the expulsion of a Member, the Clerk notifies the 
  Governor of the relevant State of the action of the House. 107-2, July 
  24, 2002, p ____.
      There have been many instances in which an expulsion proposal 
  considered in the House has failed, either because it was not 
  supported by a two-thirds vote or because the House preferred some 
  lesser penalty, such as reprimand. This has occurred where a Member 
  was charged with:

     Publishing an article alleged to be in violation of the 
         privileges of the House. 2 Hinds Sec. 1245.
     Abuse of the leave to print. 6 Cannon Sec. 236.
     Involvement in an affray on the floor of the House. 2 Hinds 
         Sec. 1643.
     Assaulting a Senator. 2 Hinds Sec. 1621.
     Uttering words alleged to be treasonable. 2 Hinds 
         Sec. Sec. 1253, 1254.
     Accepting money for nominating a person to the military 
         academy. 2 Hinds Sec. 1274.
     Attempting to bribe Members of Congress by offering them 
         shares of stock at sums below their actual value. 2 Hinds 
         Sec. 1286.
     Assaulting another Member for words spoken in debate. 2 Hinds 
         Sec. 1656.
     Using offensive language toward another Member on the floor 
         and deceiving the Speaker when the Speaker attempted to control 
         the debate. 2 Hinds Sec. 1251.
     Seeking improper dismissal of parking tickets and making 
         misstatements of fact in a memorandum relating to an 
         associate's criminal probation record. H. Res. 440, H. Res. 
         442, H. Rept. 101-610, In re Frank, July 26, 1990, pp 19705, 
         19717.


  Sec. 21 . -- Procedure; Resolutions of Expulsion

                              Generally; Form

      Expulsion proceedings may be initiated by the introduction of a 
  resolution containing explicit charges, as follows:


[[Page 518]]


      Whereas, the Hon. ______________, a Member of the House of 
    Representatives from the State of ______________, has, upon this day 
    ______________: Therefore, be it
      Resolved, That the said ______________, be, and he hereby is, 
    expelled from the House of Representatives.

  2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1254, 1261, 1262.

      Under the more recent practice, allegations of misconduct have not 
  been included in the resolution as reported from the Committee on 
  Standards of Official Conduct but rather in the accompanying report:

      Resolved, That pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2 of the 
    United States Constitution, Representative______________, be, and he 
    hereby is, expelled from the House of Representatives.

  H. Res. 495, H. Rept. 107-594, In re Traficant, July 24, 2002, p ____.

      The resolution should be limited in its application to one Member 
  only, although several may be involved. Separate resolutions should be 
  prepared on each Member. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 13.
      A resolution proposing expulsion may provide for a committee to 
  investigate and report on the matter. Referral of such a resolution 
  normally is made to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. 
  Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 13. The resolution is subject to the motion to lay 
  on the table. Manual Sec. 66.
      Under the Constitution, a resolution of expulsion requires the 
  support of two-thirds of those Members present and voting. An 
  amendment proposing expulsion may be agreed to by a majority vote; 
  but, on the proposition as amended, a two-thirds vote is required. 2 
  Hinds Sec. 1274. An amendment providing for censure is not germane to 
  a resolution of expulsion. 6 Cannon Sec. 236 (distinguishing 5 Hinds 
  Sec. 5923).


  Sec. 22 . Censure; Reprimand

                                 Generally

      Censure and reprimand are two other forms of discipline that may 
  be administered pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2 of the 
  Constitution, which authorizes the House to punish a Member for 
  disorderly behavior. Manual Sec. 63. These punitive measures are 
  ordered in the House by a majority of those voting, a quorum being 
  present. The House itself must order the sanction. The Speaker cannot 
  on his own authority censure a Member. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16.
      During its history, the House has censured or reprimanded numerous 
  Members or Delegates. The House on occasion has made a distinction 
  between censure and reprimand, the latter being somewhat less 
  punitive. Cen

[[Page 519]]

  sure is administered by the Speaker to the Member at the bar of the 
  House, perhaps in a manner specified in the resolution, including the 
  reading of the censure resolution. See, e.g., 96-1, July 31, 1979, p 
  21592; 96-2, June 10, 1980, p 13820. On the other hand, reprimand is 
  administered to the Member merely by the adoption of a committee 
  report. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16; 105-1, Jan. 21, 1997, p 459.
      If necessary, the Member to be censured may be arrested and 
  brought to the bar for the Speaker's pronouncement. 2 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 1251, 1305. The censure appears in full in the Journal. 2 
  Hinds Sec. 1656; 6 Cannon Sec. 236. In rare instances, the House has 
  reconsidered a vote of censure or expunged a censure from the Journal 
  of a preceding Congress. 2 Hinds Sec. 1653; 4 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2792, 
  2793.


  Sec. 23 . -- Grounds; Particular Conduct

      The conduct for which censure may be imposed is not limited to 
  acts relating to the Member's official duties. The power to censure 
  extends to any reprehensible conduct that brings the House into 
  disrepute. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16.
      Many early cases of censure involved the use of unparliamentary 
  language (2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1247-1249, 1251, 1305), assaults on a 
  Member or Senator (2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1621, 1656), or insults to the 
  House by the introduction of offensive resolutions (2 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 1246, 1256). During the Civil War, some Members whose 
  sympathies lay with the Confederacy were censured for uttering 
  treasonable words. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1252-1254. Censure was also 
  invoked on the basis of evidence of corrupt acts by a Member. 2 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 1239, 1273, 1274, 1286.
      More recent cases have seen censure or reprimand invoked against a 
  Member for:

     Ignoring the processes and authority of the New York State 
         courts, and improperly using government funds. Deschler Ch 12 
         Sec. 16.1. Censure recommendation was rejected in favor of 
         other penalties. Sec. 1, supra.
     Failing to report certain financial holdings, in violation of 
         the Code of Official Conduct, and investing in stock in a bank, 
         the establishment of which he was promoting, in violation of 
         the Code of Ethics for Government Service. H. Res. 1421, H. 
         Rept. 94-1364, In re Sikes, July 29, 1976, p 24377.
     Failing to report a campaign contribution as required by law. 
         H. Res. 1415, H. Rept. 95-1742, In re McFall, Oct. 13, 1978, p 
         37005.
     Failing to report a campaign contribution, converting a 
         campaign contribution to personal use, and testifying falsely 
         to the committee under oath. H. Res. 1416, H. Rept. 95-1743, In 
         re Roybal, Oct. 13, 1978, p 37009.

[[Page 520]]

     Unjust enrichment through increasing an office employee's 
         salary. H. Res. 378, H. Rept. 96-351, In re Diggs, July 31, 
         1979, p 21584.
     Receiving money from a person with direct interest in 
         legislation, in violation of rule XXIII clause 4, and 
         transferring campaign funds into office and personal accounts. 
         H. Res. 660, H. Rept. 96-930, In re Wilson, June 10, 1980, p 
         13801.
     Sexual misconduct with a page. H. Res. 265, H. Rept. 98-295, 
         In re Studds, July 20, 1983, p 20030; H. Res. 266, H. Rept. 98-
         296, In re Crane, July 20, 1983, p 20020.
     Filing false financial disclosure statements in violation of 
         the Ethics in Government Act. H. Res. 558, H. Rept. 98-891, In 
         re Hansen, July 31, 1984, p 21650.
     ``Ghost voting,'' improperly diverting government resources, 
         and maintaining a ``ghost employee'' on his staff. H. Res. 335, 
         H. Rept. 100-485, In re Murphy, Dec. 18, 1987, p 36266.
     Seeking improper dismissal of parking tickets and for 
         misstating facts in a memorandum relating to an associate's 
         criminal probation record. H. Res. 440, H. Rept. 101-610, In re 
         Frank, July 26, 1990, p 19717.

  Sec. 24 . -- Censure Resolutions

                                 Generally

      The censure of a Member is imposed pursuant to a resolution 
  adopted by the House. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16. The resolution may take 
  the following form:

      Resolved, That the Member from ____________, Mr. ____________, in 
    ____________________ has been guilty of a violation of the rules and 
    privileges of the House and merits the censure of the House for the 
    same.
      Resolved, That said ______ be now brought to the bar of the House 
    by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the censure of the House be 
    administered there by the Speaker.

  2 Hinds Sec. 1259.

      The resolution may call for direct and immediate action by the 
  House. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16. Such a resolution should be drafted to 
  apply to only one Member, although two or more Members may be 
  involved. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1240, 1621.
      A resolution of censure presents a question of privilege. 3 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 2649-2651; 6 Cannon Sec. 239. The Speaker may recognize a 
  Member to offer a resolution of censure after the question on agreeing 
  to a resolution calling for expulsion has been decided adversely. 6 
  Cannon Sec. 236. A resolution reported from committee may be adopted 
  with an amendment converting the resolution from one of censure to one 
  of a lesser sanction, such as reprimand. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16.1; 95-
  2, Oct. 13, 1978, p 37009.

[[Page 521]]

                    Effect of Apologies or Explanations

      In situations involving censure for unparliamentary language or 
  behavior, the House may accept an apology or explanation from the 
  Member and terminate the proceedings. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1250, 1257, 
  1258, 1652. The resolution of censure may be withdrawn. 2 Hinds 
  Sec. 1250. If the House already has voted to censure, it may 
  reconsider its vote and decide against censure. 2 Hinds Sec. 1653.


  Sec. 25 . Fines; Restitution of Funds

      Pursuant to its constitutional authority to punish its Members, 
  the House may levy a fine as a disciplinary measure against a Member 
  for certain misconduct. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2; Deschler Ch 
  12 Sec. 17. The fine may be coupled with certain other disciplinary 
  measures deemed appropriate by the House. Examples of such fines 
  include the following:

     For improper expenditure of House funds for private purposes, 
         a fine of $25,000, to be deducted in monthly installments from 
         the Member's salary. 91-1, H. Res. 2, Jan. 3, 1969, p 29.
     For misuse of congressional clerk-hire, restitution of monies 
         in the amount in which the Member personally benefited by such 
         misuse. H. Res. 378, H. Rept. 96-351, In re Diggs, July 31, 
         1979, p 21584.
     For a serious violation that, in the opinion of the Committee 
         on Standards of Official Conduct, was more serious than one 
         deserving reprimand but less serious than one deserving 
         censure, reimbursement to the committee for the cost of 
         conducting the investigation, which was $300,000. H. Res. 31, 
         H. Rept. 105-1, In re Gingrich, Jan. 21, 1997, p 393.

  Fines imposed by the House are separate and distinct from those for 
  which a Member might be liable under Federal law.


  Sec. 26 . Deprivation of Status; Caucus Rules

                             Seniority Status

      Deprivation of seniority status is a form of disciplinary action 
  that may be invoked by the House against a Member under article I, 
  section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution. Thus, the House may reduce a 
  Member's seniority to that of a first-term Congressman. Deschler Ch 12 
  Sec. 18.2. The House may also reduce a Member's committee seniority as 
  a result of party discipline enforced through the Member's party 
  caucus. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 18.1.

                Committee Participation; Committee Chairman

      The chairman of a committee of the House may be subjected to a 
  variety of disciplinary measures for misconduct in his capacity as 
  chairman. In

[[Page 522]]

  one instance, a party caucus removed a Member from his position as 
  chairman of a committee based on a report disclosing certain 
  improprieties concerning his travel expenses and clerk-hiring 
  practices. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 9.2. The members of a committee may, 
  consistent with the House rules, restrict a chairman's authority to 
  appoint special subcommittees or transfer authority from the chairman 
  to the membership and the subcommittee chairmen. Deschler Ch 12 
  Sec. Sec. 12.3, 12.4. The House, through the adoption of a resolution, 
  may restrict the power of the chairman to provide for funds for 
  investigations by subcommittees. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 12.2. A 
  resolution alleging that a Member willfully abused his power as 
  chairman of a committee investigating campaign finance improprieties 
  by unilaterally releasing records of the committee in contravention of 
  its rules, and expressing disapproval of such conduct, constitutes a 
  question of the privileges of the House and may be tabled without 
  debate. 105-2, H. Res. 431, May 14, 1998, p ____.
      Rule 25 of the rules of the Republican Conference requires the 
  chairman of any committee or subcommittee to step aside temporarily 
  when indicted for a felony for which a prison sentence of two or more 
  years could be imposed. Rule 26 imposes a similar requirement on a 
  member of the leadership. Rule 27 imposes a more stringent requirement 
  that the chairman of any committee or subcommittee be replaced when 
  censured by the House or convicted of a felony for which a prison 
  sentence of two or more years could be imposed. Rules of the 
  Republican Conference, 107th Cong. Rules 50 and 51 of the rules of the 
  Democratic Caucus impose similar step-aside requirements on its 
  chairmen or ranking minority members. Rules of the Democratic Caucus, 
  107th Cong.
      Under rule XXIII clause 10, a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
  Commissioner who has been convicted by a court of record for the 
  commission of a crime for which a prison sentence of two or more years 
  could be imposed should refrain from participation in the business of 
  each committee of which he is a member.

              Voting by a Member Convicted of Certain Crimes

      Under rule XXIII clause 10, a Member who has been convicted by a 
  court of record for the commission of a crime for which a prison 
  sentence of two or more years could be imposed should refrain from 
  voting on any question in the House or the Committee of the Whole, 
  unless or until judicial or executive proceedings result in 
  reinstatement of the presumption of his innocence or until he is 
  reelected to the House after the date of such conviction.

[[Page 523]]

  Sec. 27 . Letter of Reproval

      A letter of reproval is a sanction the Committee on Standards of 
  Official Conduct may impose by majority vote. Rule 25(c), Rules of the 
  Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 107th Cong. The committee 
  may issue a letter of reproval as indicated in the following examples:

     For bringing discredit to the House with respect to a Member's 
         ongoing professional relationship with a former member of his 
         staff, with respect to his campaign committee, and for 
         violating House gift restrictions. H. Rept. 106-979, In re 
         Shuster.
     For bringing discredit to the House by conduct in interacting 
         with two female employees. H. Rept. 101-293, In re Bates.
     Where the committee cited mitigating circumstances. H. Rept. 
         100-526, In re Rose.

  A letter of reproval may direct the Member to apologize. Deschler Ch 
  12 Sec. 13; H. Rept. 101-293, In re Bates.