Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3 - § 8. Financial Matters; Disclosure Requirements

[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3]
[Chapter 12. Conduct or Discipline of Members, Officers, or Employees]
[A. Introductory; Particular Kinds of Misconduct]
[§ 8. Financial Matters; Disclosure Requirements]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1710-1714]
 
                               CHAPTER 12
 
        Conduct or Discipline of Members, Officers, or Employees
 
            A. INTRODUCTORY; PARTICULAR KINDS OF MISCONDUCT
 
Sec. 8. Financial Matters; Disclosure Requirements

    The House rules (Rule XLIV) require the disclosure, each year, of 
certain financial interests by Members, officers, and principal 
assistants. They must file a report disclosing the identity of certain 
business entities in which they have an interest, as well as certain 
professional organizations from which they derive an 
income.⁽⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule XLIV, House Rules and Manual Sec. 940 (1973)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1711]]

    Rule XLIV of the rules of the House was amended to require 
disclosure of: (1) honorariums received from a single source totaling 
$300 or more, and (2) each creditor to whom was owed any unsecured loan 
or other indebtedness of $10,000 or more which was outstanding for a, 
least 90 days in the preceding calendar year.⁽⁷⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 17012, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1970 [H. Res. 
        796].
            A resolution reported by the Committee on Standards of 
        Official Conduct, amending Rule XLIV to revise the financial 
        disclosure requirements of that rule, is not a privileged 
        resolution under Rule XI clause 22. 116 Cong. Rec. 17012, 91st 
        Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1970 [H. Res. 971, providing for 
        consideration of H. Res. 796].
            The loans disclosure provision was included following 
        allegations in 1969 that a member of the House Committee on 
        Banking and Currency had owed banks more than $75,000. See H. 
        Rept. No. 91-938, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., and ``Congress and the 
        Nation'' vol. III, 1969-1972, p. 426, Congressional Quarterly, 
        Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The financial statements required by Rule XLIV must be 
filedannually by Apr. 30.⁽⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XLIV, House Rules and Manual Sec. 940 
        (1973).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improper Fee

Sec. 8.1 Charges that a Senator had used his position as a subcommittee 
    chairman to attempt to aid a labor leader in avoiding a prison 
    sentence and had received fees for his efforts were investigated in 
    the 90th Congress by a Senate select committee; the committee 
    determined that the payments that had been made were not related to 
    the labor leader or his union.

    In the 90th Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Standards and 
Conduct investigated charges that a Senator--Edward V. Long, of 
Missouri--had used his position as a subcommittee chairman to attempt 
to aid a labor leader in staying out of prison and had accepted fees 
for his efforts from one of the labor leader's lawyers.^(~9~) 
Statements appeared in several magazines and newspapers that the 
payments made to the Senator by Morris Shenker, a practicing attorney 
in St. Louis, Missouri, were made to influence the hearings on 
invasions of privacy conducted by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Administrative Practice and Procedure, of which the Senator was 
Chairman, for the purpose of assisting James Hoffa of the International 
Teamsters Union.⁽¹⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 113 Cong. Rec. 30096-98, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 25, 1967.
10. Id. at p. 30096.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1712]]

    The select committee conducted an investigation and concluded that 
the payments made to the Senator by Mr. Shenker between 1961 and 1967 
were for professional legal services, and that they had no relationship 
to Mr. Hoffa or to the Teamsters Union. The committee also concluded 
that the payments had no connection with the Senator's ``duties or 
activities as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice 
and Procedure, the Subcommittee hearings or Senator Long's duties or 
activities as a Member of the Senate.⁽¹¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 30098.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abuses in Introducing Immigration Bills

Sec. 8.2 Charges that bribes were paid to Senate employees for the 
    introduction of private immigration bills to help Chinese seamen 
    avoid deportation were investigated by a Senate select committee in 
    the 91st Congress; the committee found no evidence of misconduct by 
    any Senator or Senate employee.

    In the 91st Congress,⁽¹²⁾ the Chairman ⁽¹³⁾ 
of the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct discussed on 
the Senate floor a report of the committee which had been submitted 
that day dealing with an investigation of the introduction of private 
immigration bills in the Senate for the relief of Chinese crewmen 
during the 90th and 91st Congresses.^(1~4) Statements had 
been made in the media that some Senators or their aides received gifts 
and campaign contributions for introducing bills to enable Chinese 
ship-jumpers to escape deportation as the result of illegal stays in 
this country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 116 Cong. Rec. 17361, 17362, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 28, 1970.
13. 13. John Stennis (Miss.).
14. 116 Cong. Rec 17360, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., S. Rept. No. 91-911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The chairman stated that more than 600 such bills had been 
introduced during the two Congresses, a great increase over the average 
number that had been introduced in prior Congresses. He pointed out 
that when the matter had first come to the committee's attention in 
September 1969, he communicated with the majority and minority 
leadership about strict enforcement of procedures for the introduction 
of bills. ``. . . [T]he leadership responded immediately,'' he said, 
``by invoking the practice that for future bills to be introduced, they 
had to have the actual signature and the presence of a sponsoring 
Senator.'' ^(l5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 17362.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1713]]

    The committee and its staff investigated the more than 600 bills to 
ascertain if any abuses had taken place. The chairman concluded: ``. . 
. I can safely summarize . . . by saying that we found no evidence of 
any misconduct by any Senator or any Senate employee, nor did we 
believe from the information we obtained that there was any reason for 
further proceedings.'' ⁽¹⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auto-leasing Agreements

Sec. 8.3 A Senate select committee determined that it was improper for 
    a company to make an agreement with a Senate committee for the 
    leasing of cars for the private use of Senators.

    On Aug. 24, 1970, the Chairman ⁽¹⁷⁾ of the Senate Select 
Committee on Standards and Conduct reported to the Senate the results 
of the committee's investigation and recommendations respecting the 
leasing by certain Senators of automobiles from an automobile 
manufacturing company under specially favorable terms. The chairman 
declared that one company had made an agreement directly with a Senate 
committee for the leasing of cars for the private use of Senators. A 
Senator receiving a car paid the amount of the lease at a price less 
than that offered the general public. Appropriated funds were not 
used.⁽¹⁸⁾ The chairman said that the leasing arrangements 
were made for promotional purposes by the company, without intent to 
exercise improper influence. He added that the committee had concluded 
that the leasing arrangements with Senators violated no law nor any 
Senate rule,^(19~) but declared:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John Stennis (Miss.).
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 29880, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he practice of the one company of making an agreement 
    directly with a Senate committee for the leasing of cars for the 
    private use of Senators clearly is improper. A Senate committee by 
    itself does not have the authority to make such a contract, which 
    in our opinion is void and unenforcible. Although these lease 
    agreements do not bind the Senate or any of its committees, we 
    believe this practice by the committees should be terminated at 
    once.
        After carefully considering the benefits and the implications 
    of the leasing of cars to Senators, our committee makes the 
    following advisory recommendation for the guidance of the various 
    Senators involved: Existing private leases of automobiles to 
    Senators at favorable rates should be terminated at or before the 
    end of the current model year. These leases should not be renewed. 
    In making pri

[[Page 1714]]

    vate agreements in the future for the leasing of automobiles, 
    Senators should not accept any favorable terms and conditions that 
    are available to them only as Senators.⁽²⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investments

Sec. 8.4 The House reprimanded a Member for certain conduct occurring 
    during prior Congresses involving conflicts of interest (in 
    violation of a generally accepted standard of ethical conduct 
    applicable to all government officials but not enacted into 
    permanent law at the time of the violation), as well as failure to 
    make proper financial disclosures in accordance with a House rule 
    then in effect, but declined to punish the Member for other prior 
    conduct under the circumstances of the case.

    On July 29, 1976,⁽²¹⁾ the House agreed to a resolution 
adopting the report (H. Rept. No. 94-1364) of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct which reprimanded a Member (1) for 
failing to disclose, in violation of Rule XLIV (requiring financial 
disclosure of Members) his ownership of certain stock; and (2) for his 
investment in a Navy bank while actively promoting its establishment, 
in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service. The report 
also declined to punish the Member for his sponsorship of legislation 
in 1961 in which he had a direct financial interest, since an extended 
period of time had elapsed, and the Member had been continually re-
elected by constituents with apparent knowledge of the circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See the proceedings relating to H. Res. 1421, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------