ETHICS MANUAL

* conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House;

* abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the House rules; and

* adhere to the broad ethical standards expressed in the Code of Ethics for Government Service.

They should not seek private gain from public office. Nor should they attempt to circumvent any House rule or standard of conduct.

Employees must observe any additional rules, regulations, standards, or practices established by their employing Members.

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct urges Members, officers, and employees of the House to call or to write with any questions regarding the propriety of any current or proposed conduct. The Committee's Office of Advice and Education will provide confidential, informal advice over the telephone, and the Committee will provide confidential, formal written opinions to any Member, officer, or employee with a question within its jurisdiction.

That ``public office is a public trust'' has long been a guiding principle of government. (FOOTNOTE 1) To uphold this trust, Congress has bound itself to abide by certain standards of conduct, expressed in the Code of Official Conduct (House Rule 43) (FOOTNOTE 2) and the Code of Ethics for Government Service. (FOOTNOTE 3) These Codes exhort Members, officers, and employees to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect creditably on the House, to work earnestly and thoughtfully for their salary, not to seek to profit by virtue of their public office or to allow themselves to be improperly influenced, and never to discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors. These codes are set forth at the front of this Manual. Other rules, regulations, and statutes that bear upon the standards governing official conduct are set forth in the appendices. This chapter discusses the overarching principles that inform both codes, the penalties for violating their provisions, and the history and procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

(FOOTNOTE 1) Code of Ethics for Government Service para.10, H. Con. Res. 175, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 72 Stat., pt. 2, B12 (adopted July 11, 1958). This creed, the motto of the Grover Cleveland administration, has been voiced by such notables as Edmund Burke (Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)), Henry Clay (speech at Ashland, Kentucky, March 1829), John C. Calhoun (speech, Feb. 13, 1835), and Charles Sumner (speech, U.S. Senate, May 31, 1872).

(FOOTNOTE 2) Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the House of Representatives, Rules of the House of Representatives, 102d Cong. (1991) (hereinafter House Rules). House Rules are formally referenced by Roman numerals. For ease of reading, this Manual uses the more familiar Arabic numerals throughout.

(FOOTNOTE 3) See note 1, supra.

Appropriate standards of conduct enhance the legislative process and build citizen confidence. ``Ethics rules, if reasonably drafted and reliably enforced, increase the likelihood that legislators (and other officials) will make decisions and policies on the basis of the merits of issues, rather than on the basis of factors (such as personal gain) that should be irrelevant.'' (FOOTNOTE 4) Members, officers, and employees should, at a minimum, familiarize themselves with the Code of Official Conduct. Not only does it state aspirational goals for public officials, it may also provide the basis for disciplinary action against those who violate its terms. As Aristotle observed long ago, ``With regard to excellence, it is not enough to know, but we must try to have and use it.'' (FOOTNOTE 5)

(FOOTNOTE 4) Congressional Ethics Reform: Hearings Before the Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics, U.S. House of Representatives, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 113 (1989) (statement of Dennis F. Thompson, Alfred North Whitehead Professor of Political Philosophy in the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Government, Harvard University, and Director of the Harvard University Program in Ethics and the Professions).

(FOOTNOTE 5) Nicomachean Ethics, bk. X, ch. 9.

(FOOTNOTE 6) U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 5, cl. 2.

(FOOTNOTE 7) See generally Joint Comm. on Congressional Operations, House of Representatives Exclusion, Censure, and Expulsion Cases from 1789 to 1973, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm. Print 1973).

A House rule specifically authorizes the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to enforce standards of conduct for Members, officers, and employees; to investigate alleged violations of any law, rule, or regulation pertaining to official conduct; and to make recommendations to the House for further action. This same rule recognizes the Committee's authority to issue letters of reproval and to take other administrative action. With the approval of the House, the Committee may also report substantial evidence of violation of law by a Member, officer, or employee to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. (FOOTNOTE 8)

(FOOTNOTE 8) See House Rule 10, cl. 4(e)(1)(C); but see also 5 U.S.C. app. 6, sec.104(b), authorizing the Committee to refer to the Attorney General, even without seeking approval of the House, individuals who have willfully failed to file or falsified information required to be reported on Financial Disclosure Statements.

Some standards of conduct derive from criminal law. Violations of these standards may lead to a fine or imprisonment, or both. In some instances, such as conversion of Government funds or property to one's own use or false claims concerning expenses or allowances, the Department of Justice may seek restitution.

Even where no specific penalties are provided, employees of the House may be removed from their positions for misconduct at the discretion of the employing Member (FOOTNOTE 9) or committee) (FOOTNOTE 10) or by a supervising officer. (FOOTNOTE 11)

(FOOTNOTE 9) See 2 U.S.C. sec. 92.

(FOOTNOTE 10) See House Rule 11, cls. 6(a)(4), 6(b)(3).

(FOOTNOTE 11) See 2 U.S.C. sec. 60-1(a)(2); see also 2 U.S.C. sec.90.

Charges of unethical conduct can be evaluated only on a case-by-case basis. As the Committee has noted, ``it was for the very purpose of evaluating particular situations against existing standards, and of weeding out baseless charges from legitimate ones, that this committee was created.'' (FOOTNOTE 12)

(FOOTNOTE 12) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of a Complaint against Representative Robert L.F. Sikes, H. Rep. No. 94-1364, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1976).

(FOOTNOTE 13) 2 Asher C. Hinds, Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States sec.1642-1643 (1907).

From 1798 until 1967, the House undertook disciplinary action against Members over twenty-five times, with no standardized approach. The offenses ranged from dueling to inserting obscene material in the Congressional Record. Some cases were handled directly on the House floor without Committee action, others through the creation of select investigating committees. In at least one case, the accused Member was not allowed to speak on his own behalf or to present any defense. (FOOTNOTE 14) There were even attempts to punish former Members who had resigned. (FOOTNOTE 15)

(FOOTNOTE 14) Id. sec.1256 (In the Matter of Representative Joshua R. Giddings).

(FOOTNOTE 15) Id. sec.1239 (In the Matter of Representative John T. Deweese), sec.1273 (In the Matter of Representative Benjamin F. Whittemore).

In the late 1940's and early 1950's, Senators Wayne Morse and Paul Douglas and Representative Charles Bennett began to advocate the enactment of financial disclosure requirements and rules of conduct. In 1958, the Code of Ethics for Government Service was approved. (FOOTNOTE 16) In 1964, following the investigation of Bobby Baker, Secretary to the Majority in the Senate, the Senate created a Select Committee on Standards of Conduct.

(FOOTNOTE 16) See note 1, supra.

During the 89th Congress, two different events prompted the creation of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. In 1965, the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress held hearings in which considerable testimony addressed the ethical conduct of Members, the need for codes of conduct and financial disclosure regulations, and the need for an ethics committee. In its final report, the Joint Committee's recommendations included the creation of a House Committee on Standards and Conduct. (FOOTNOTE 17)

(FOOTNOTE 17) Joint Comm. on the Organization of Congress, Final Report pursuant to S. Con. Res. 2, S. Rep. No. 1414, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 48 (1966).

The other event involved an investigation by the Special Subcommittee on Contracts of the Committee on House Administration into the expenditures of the Committee on Education and Labor and the conduct of its chairman, Representative Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., of New York. The Subcommittee's report concluded that the chairman and certain employees had deceived House authorities as to travel expenses and also noted strong evidence that the chairman had directed certain illegal salary payments to his wife. (FOOTNOTE 18) No formal action was taken during the 89th Congress against Representative Powell. He was removed from his chairmanship, then excluded from the 90th Congress, however, (FOOTNOTE 19) and in the, then 91st Congress, he was denied his seniority and fined. (FOOTNOTE 20)

(FOOTNOTE 18) H. Rep. No. 2349, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 6-7 (1966).

(FOOTNOTE 19) See House Select Comm. pursuant to H. Res. 1, In re Adam Clayton Powell, H. Rep. No. 27, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967); 113 Cong. Rec 14-27 (Jan. 10, 1967); 113 Cong. Rec 4997-5039 (Mar. 1, 1967). But see Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (holding that exclusion had been unconstitutional).

(FOOTNOTE 20) See H. Res. 2, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 115 Cong. Rec. 15-34 (Jan. 3, 1969).

Against this backdrop, a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was established in the closing days of the 89th Congress. The Select Committee's authority was limited to (1) recommending additional rules or regulations to ensure that Members, officers, and employees of the House adhere to proper standards of conduct in the discharge of their official duties; and (2) reporting violations of any law to the proper Federal and state authorities. (FOOTNOTE 21)

(FOOTNOTE 21) H.R. 1013, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966); see also House Comm. on Rules, Creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, Report to Accompany H.R. 1013, H. Rep. No. 2012, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966).

The Select Committee's term was limited. (FOOTNOTE 22) On April 13, 1967, the House established the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to be composed of six members of the majority party and six members of the minority party. The Committee was directed to recommend such changes in laws, rules, and regulations as necessary to establish and to enforce standards of official conduct for Members, officers, and employees. (FOOTNOTE 23) One year later, the House Rules were amended to include a Code of Conduct (Rule 43) and an annual financial disclosure requirement (Rule 44). (FOOTNOTE 24) At the same time, the Committee was made a permanent standing committee with authority to investigate alleged violations of the Code and to issue advisory opinions interpreting its provisions. (FOOTNOTE 25)

(FOOTNOTE 22) See generally House Select Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Report under the Authority of H.R. 1013, H. Rep. No. 2338, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966).

(FOOTNOTE 23) H. Res. 418, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967).

(FOOTNOTE 24) H. Res. 1099, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968).

(FOOTNOTE 25) Id.; see House Rule 10, cl. 4(e)(1).

Three ad hoc groups have influenced the Committee's work: The Commission on Administrative Review (generally known as the Obey Commission), the Select Committee on Ethics, and the Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics. The Obey Commission was established in July 1976 (95th Congress) and directed to make recommendations to the House concerning ethical practices, financial accountability, and administrative operations of the House. These recommendations were set forth in a report entitled Financial Ethics (FOOTNOTE 26) and a resolution, H. Res. 287. The House's adoption, on March 2, 1977, of H. Res. 287 changed the House rules governing financial disclosure, outside earned income, acceptance of gifts, unofficial office accounts, franking privileges, and travel. The Commission also recommended the creation of a select committee with legislative jurisdiction over these areas.

(FOOTNOTE 26) H. Doc. No. 95-73, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977).

Following the Commission's recommendation, the House established the Select Committee on Ethics in March 1977 to provide guidelines and interpretations concerning House Rules 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47, and to report legislation. The Select Committee and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct operated simultaneously, with different jurisdictions. During the two years of the Select Committee's existence, it issued 13 formal Advisory Opinions interpreting the new House rules and recommended that House Rules 44 (financial disclosure) and 46 (franking) be enacted into law, which occurred in 1978. (FOOTNOTE 27) When the Select Committee completed its task, it issued a Final Report, (FOOTNOTE 28) and its records and materials were transferred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to assist the latter in rendering advisory opinions and interpreting House rules relating to financial ethics and standards of conduct.

(FOOTNOTE 27) See Ethics in Government Act of 1978, now codified, as amended, at 5 U.S.C. app. 6, secs.101-111 (financial disclosure) and 39 U.S.C. secs.3210-3220 (franking).

(FOOTNOTE 28) H. Rep. No. 95-1837, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1979).

On February 2, 1989, the Speaker and the Republican Leader of the 101st Congress appointed a Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics to conduct a comprehensive review of House ethics rules and regulations. Co-chaired by Representatives Vic Fazio and Lynn Martin, the Task Force looked anew at the rules concerning gifts, honoraria, outside earned income, financial disclosure, and the use of official resources, as well as considering issues relating to ethics committee procedures and the compensation of Members and other senior government officials. After four public hearings and much internal study, the Task Force issued a report (FOOTNOTE 29) and a bill, H.R. 3660. This bill became the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, signed into law on November 30, 1989. (FOOTNOTE 30) The Ethics Reform Act enacted a total ban on honoraria, revisions to the outside earned income limits, new post-employment restrictions, changes to the gift and travel limits, and financial disclosure revisions.

(FOOTNOTE 29) House Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics, Report on H.R. 3660, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm. Print, Comm. on Rules 1989), reprinted in 135 Cong. Rec. H9253 (daily ed. Nov. 21, 1989).

(FOOTNOTE 30) Pub. L. No. 101-194, 103 Stat. 1716 (1989), as amended.

Moreover, the Ethics Reform Act contained several provisions affecting the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. In 1990, a separate Office of Advice and Education was established within the Committee to provide confidential advice to Members, officers, and employees. A statute of limitations of three terms was enacted for investigations of alleged violations. In 1991, the Committee's membership increased from 12 to 14, and it adopted procedures ensuring that the same members do not both recommend charges and sit in judgment of those charges.

(FOOTNOTE 31) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Rules, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm. Print 1991) (hereinafter Comm. Rules), reprinted in 137 Cong. Rec. H3731-37 (daily ed. May 30, 1991).

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

* A complaint must be in writing, under oath, and dated.

* A Member of the House may file a complaint directly, or may forward the complaint of an individual not a Member for the purpose of initiating a Preliminary Inquiry.

* If three Members refuse in writing to forward the complaint of someone not a Member, acknowledging that this may cause the Committee to initiate a Preliminary Inquiry, then the individual may file the Complaint directly with the Committee. An exact copy of the complaint filed must be attached to each refusal letter.

* The complaining party must provide a copy of the complaint to the respondent (the person against whom the complaint is filed) or the Committee will not accept it.

* Complaints filed within 60 days of an election in which the respondent is a candidate will not be accepted.

* The respondent will be notified if a complaint is returned, as well as if it is accepted by the Committee as properly filed.

* The respondent will be afforded an opportunity to provide information in response to a complaint.

* The Committee generally will not undertake an investigation of an alleged violation that occurred before the third previous Congress.

* If a Member, officer, or employee is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one or more years may be imposed, a Preliminary Inquiry must be undertaken after sentencing, though the Committee may act sooner. (FOOTNOTE 32)

(FOOTNOTE 32) See generally Comm. Rules 14, 15, 16(e).

Upon receipt of a complaint, the Committee first determines if it complies with clause 4(e)(2)(B) of Rule 10 of the Rules of the House of Representatives as well as Committee Rule 14. If the Committee determines that the complaint is in proper form, the matter is within its jurisdiction, and the complaint merits further inquiry, it may initiate a Preliminary Inquiry upon an affirmative vote of at least eight of its fourteen members. Once a Preliminary Inquiry is voted, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member will select four or six Members to comprise an Investigative Subcommittee. (FOOTNOTE 33)

(FOOTNOTE 33) Comm. Rule 15(a), (f).

The Investigative Subcommittee reviews the evidence and determines whether there is reason to believe that an offense within the Committee's jurisdiction was committed. If so, the Investigative Subcommittee notifies the Respondent of its determination and files with the full Committee a Statement of Alleged Violation, asserting specific charges in separate accounts. (FOOTNOTE 34)

(FOOTNOTE 34) Comm. Rule 17(d).

The Chairman then designates the remaining eight or ten Committee members to serve as an Adjudicatory Subcommittee to conduct a Disciplinary Hearing where evidence and sworn testimony is received. At the conclusion of the Disciplinary Hearing, the subcommittee determines if any count contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation is proved by clear and convincing evidence. (FOOTNOTE 35) If so, all Members of the Committee hold a Sanction Hearing to determine what punishment, if any, to recommend to the House of Representatives. (FOOTNOTE 36)

(FOOTNOTE 35) See generally Comm. Rule 19.

(FOOTNOTE 36) Comm. Rule 20(b).

The Committee may recommend one or more of the following sanctions to the House of Representatives:

(1) expulsion from the House of Representatives;

(2) censure;

(3) reprimand;

(4) fine;

(5) denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or immunity of the Member that the Constitution permits the House of Representatives to limit or deny;

(6) any other sanction determined by the Committee to be appropriate. (FOOTNOTE 37)

(FOOTNOTE 37) Comm. Rule 20(e).

Alternatively, the Committee may send a Letter of Reproval to the Respondent without recommending further action by the full House. (FOOTNOTE 38)

(FOOTNOTE 38) Comm. Rule 20(c)-(d).

In the entire history of the House of Representatives, only four Members have been expelled, three of them for conduct traitorous to the Union in the Civil War era, and one for bribery. Since the establishment of this Committee, four Members have been censured by the House after Committee investigations, and seven have been reprimanded. In addition, the Committee has issued three public letters of reproval, without recommending action by the full House, and has noted infractions not meriting sanction by five Members. Ten Members left the House after charges were brought by the Committee or court convictions were returned but before House action could be concluded.

-- House Rule 43, clause 1.

Members, officers, and employees of the House must observe the broad ethical standards articulated in the Code of Official Conduct (Rule 43) of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The most comprehensive provision of the code, Clause 1, states that ``a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.''

In interpreting Clause 1 of the Code when first adopted, the Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the 90th Congress noted that this standard was included within the Code to deal with ``flagrant'' violations of the law that reflect on ``Congress as a whole,'' and that might otherwise go unpunished. (FOOTNOTE 39) During floor debate preceding the adoption of the Code, however, Representative Price of Illinois, Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, rejected the notion that violations of law are simultaneous violations of the Code:

(FOOTNOTE 39) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Report Under the Authority of H. Res. 418, H. Rep. No. 1176, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 17 (1968).

The committee endeavored to draft a code that would have a deterrent effect against improper conduct and at the same time be capable of enforcement if violated. Initially the committee considered making violations of law simultaneous violations of the code, but such a direct tie-in eventually was ruled out for the reason that it might open the door to stampedes for investigation of every minor complaint or purely personal accusation made against a Member. At the same time there was a need for retaining the ability to deal with any given act or accumulation of acts which, in the judgment of the committee, are severe enough to reflect discredit on the Congress. Stated purposefully in subjective language, this standard [clause 1] provides both assurances. (FOOTNOTE 40)

(FOOTNOTE 40) 114 Cong. Rec. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968).

Later in the floor discussion, another member of the Select Committee, Representative Arends of Illinois, emphasized that the committee intended the proposed rules to focus on official, rather than personal, conduct:

[T]he Congress has the constitutional right to determine its own rules. And this right, too, has its limitations. The rules are applicable only in connection with the operation of the Congress itself. Somehow a line must be drawn as between what is personal conduct and what is official conduct. (FOOTNOTE 41)

(FOOTNOTE 41) 114 Cong. Rec. 8785 (Apr. 3, 1968).

To date, the Committee or the House has invoked Rule 43, clause 1, in investigating or disciplining Members for:

* failure to report campaign contributions (FOOTNOTE 42) and making false statements to the Committee (FOOTNOTE 43) in connection with the Korean Influence Investigation; (FOOTNOTE 44)

(FOOTNOTE 42) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative John J. McFall, H. Rep. No. 95-1742, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 2-3 (1978) (Count 1); In the Matter of Representative Edward R. Roybal, H. Rep. No. 95-1743, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 2-3 (1978) (Count 1).

(FOOTNOTE 43) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Charles H. Wilson (of California), H. Rep. No. 95-1741, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 4-5 (1978); H. Rep. No. 95-1743, supra note 42, at 3-4 (Counts 3-4).

(FOOTNOTE 44) See 124 Cong. Rec. 36976-84, 37005-17 (Oct. 13, 1978) (House debate and reprimand).

* criminal convictions for bribery (FOOTNOTE 45) or accepting illegal gratuities; (FOOTNOTE 46)

(FOOTNOTE 45) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Michael J. Myers, H. Rep. No. 96-1387, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 2, 5 (1980); see 126 Cong. Rec. 28953-78 (Oct. 2, 1980) (debate and vote of expulsion); In the Matter of Representative John W. Jenrette, Jr., H. Rep. No. 96-1537, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1980) (Member resigned); In the Matter of Representative Raymond F. Lederer, H. Rep. No. 97-110, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 4, 16-17 (1981) (Member resigned after Committee recommended expulsion). In another case, the Committee issued a Statement of Alleged Violation concerning bribery and perjury, but took no further action when the Member resigned (In the Matter of Representative Daniel J. Flood, H. Rep. No. 96-856, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 4-16, 125-126 (1980)).

(FOOTNOTE 46) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Mario Biaggi, H. Rep. No. 100-506, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 7, 9 (1988) (Member resigned while expulsion resolution was pending).

* inflating the salaries of congressional employees in order to enable them to pay the Member's personal, political, or congressional expenses; (FOOTNOTE 47)

(FOOTNOTE 47) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Charles C. Diggs, Jr., H. Rep. No. 96-351, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979); see 125 Cong. Rec. 21584-92 (July 31, 1979) (Member censured and required to make restitution); see also House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Summary of Activities, 100th Cong., H. Rep. No. 100-1125, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 15-16 (1989) (In the Matter of Delegate Fofo I.F. Sunia) (Member and aide pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government and resigned).

* accepting gifts from persons with interest in legislation in violation of the then gift rule (Rule 43, clause 4); (FOOTNOTE 48)

(FOOTNOTE 48) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Charles H. Wilson (of California), H. Rep. No. 96-930, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. 4-5 (1980); see 126 Cong. Rec. 13801-20 (June 10, 1980) (debate and vote of censure).

* engaging in sexual relationships with House pages; (FOOTNOTE 49)

(FOOTNOTE 49) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Gerry E. Studds, H. Rep. No. 98-295, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983); In the Matter of Representative Daniel B. Crane, H. Rep. No. 98-296, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983); see 129 Cong. Rec. H5280-95 (daily ed. July 20, 1983) (Committee recommended reprimand; House voted censure).

* making improper sexual advances to a Peace Corps volunteer; (FOOTNOTE 50)

(FOOTNOTE 50) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Gus Savage, H. Rep. No. 101-397, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 14 (1990) (Committee publicly disapproved conduct; no House action).

* writing a misleading memorandum that could have influenced a personal associate's probation and arranging for the improper administrative dismissal of parking tickets. (FOOTNOTE 51)

(FOOTNOTE 51) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Barney Frank, H. Rep. No. 101-610, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (1990); 136 Cong. Rec. H5633-59 (July 26, 1990) (House debate and reprimand).

A review of these cases indicates that the Committee has historically viewed clause 1 as encompassing violations of law and abuses of official position. (FOOTNOTE 52)

(FOOTNOTE 52) In one other case, the Committee never reached a determination as to whether Rule 43, clause 1 would encompass a criminal conviction for contributing to the unruliness of a minor and allegations of improper sexual advances to a congressional employee because the Member resigned prior to the conclusion of the Preliminary Inquiry. See Staff of House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Donald E. Lukens, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (Comm. Print 1990).

-- House Rule 43, clause 2.

House Rule 43, clause 2, provides that Members, officers, and employees shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of House and committee rules. The Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the 90th Congress recommended this provision in part to emphasize ``the importance of the precedents of decorum and consideration that have evolved in the House over the years.'' (FOOTNOTE 53)

(FOOTNOTE 53) H. Rep. No. 1176, supra note 39, at 17.

Beyond this genteel goal, however, the drafters did assume that the rule would provide a basis for congressional discipline. As summarized by Chairman Price:

This standard was drafted also in general terms rather than attempting to deal more specifically with such things as unfair and dilatory legislative tactics. It did not appear practicable to the committee to attempt to regulate these areas more closely. This standard should provide the House the means to deal with infractions that rise to trouble it without burdening it with defining specific charges that would be difficult to state with precision. (FOOTNOTE 54)

(FOOTNOTE 54) 114 Cong. Rec. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968); see also 114 Cong. Rec. 8799 (statement of Representative Teague, member of the House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, 90th Cong.).

The practical effect of Clause 2 of the Code has been to provide a device for construing other provisions of the Code and House rules. It has been interpreted to mean that Members, officers, and employees may not do indirectly what they would be barred from doing directly. Individuals should thus read House rules broadly. The Select Committee on Ethics of the 95th Congress cited this provision to show that a narrow technical reading of a House rule should not overcome its ``spirit'' and the intent of the House in adopting that and other rules of conduct. (FOOTNOTE 55)

(FOOTNOTE 55) See House Select Comm. on Ethics, Advisory Opinion No. 4, reprinted in Final Report, H. Rep. No. 95-1837, supra note 28, app. at 61, and at the end of Chapter 8 of this Manual.

In addition to using Clause 2 as an aid to interpreting other House rules, this Committee cited its violation in recommending expulsion for two Members convicted in separate cases of bribery in the 96th and 97th Congresses and one Member convicted of accepting illegal gratuities in the 100th Congress. (FOOTNOTE 56)

(FOOTNOTE 56) H. Rep. No. 96-1387, supra note 45, at 5; H. Rep. No. 97-110, supra note 45, at 16 n.8; H. Rep. No. 100-506, supra note 46, at 7.

This Committee's report on the measure noted that the Committee will not, as a rule, take action on a complaint of a statutory violation by a Member while the authorities charged with the statute's enforcement are pursuing the case. However, where the case raises allegations of abuse of official position or where law enforcement authorities do not appear to be acting ``expeditiously,'' the Committee may choose not to defer:

[W]here an allegation is that one has abused his direct representational or legislative position -- or his ``official conduct'' has been questioned -- the committee concerns itself forthwith, because there is no other immediate avenue of remedy. But where an allegation involves a possible violation of statutory law, and the committee is assured that the charges are known to and are being expeditiously acted upon by the appropriate authorities, the policy has been to defer action until the judicial proceedings have run their course. This is not to say the committee abandons concern in statutory matters -- rather, it feels it normally should not undertake duplicative investigations pending judicial resolution of such cases. (FOOTNOTE 57)

(FOOTNOTE 57) House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Policy of the House of Representatives with Respect to Actions by Members Convicted of Certain Crimes, H. Rep. No. 94-76, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1975).

Even if the judicial process has not entirely run its course, such as when appeals are pending, the House may take notice of guilty pleas or verdicts against a Member, since the Member cannot at that point claim the presumption of innocence. As the Committee report noted:

For the House to withhold any action whatever until ultimate disposition of a judicial proceeding could mean, in effect, the barring of any legislative branch action, since the appeals processes often do, or can be made to, extend over a period longer than the two-year term of the Member.

Since Members of Congress are not subject to recall . . . public opinion could well interpret inaction as indifference on the part of the House.

The Committee recognizes a very distinguishable link in the chain of due process -- that is, the point at which the defendant no longer has claim to the presumption of innocence. This point is reached in a criminal prosecution upon a plea of guilty or upon conviction by a jury or by a judge (or judges) if jury trial is waived. It is to this condition, and only to this condition, that the proposed resolution is directed. (FOOTNOTE 58)

(FOOTNOTE 58) Id.

Thus the Committee's rules authorize it to commence an investigation when ``a Member, officer, or employee is convicted in a Federal, State, or local court of a criminal offense for which a sentence of one or more years' imprisonment may be imposed.'' (FOOTNOTE 59) While the Committee may act prior to conviction, Committee rules mandate that an inquiry be undertaken after sentencing. (FOOTNOTE 60) Where the gravamen of the charges is abuse of official position, the full House may choose to take disciplinary action against a Member even though all appeals in the criminal process have not been exhausted. (FOOTNOTE 61)

(FOOTNOTE 59) Comm. Rule 13(e).

(FOOTNOTE 60) Comm. Rule 16(e).

(FOOTNOTE 61) See H. Rep. No. 96-351, supra note 47; H. Rep. No. 96-1387, supra note 45. In several other cases, Members resigned after conviction but before the House could act. See H. Rep. No. 96-1537, supra note 45; H. Rep. No. 97-110, supra note 45; H. Rep. No. 100-506, supra note 46; House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Summary of Activities, 101st Cong., H. Rep. No. 101-995, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 12-13 (1990) (In the Matter of Representative Robert Garcia).

(FOOTNOTE 62) See note 1, supra.

* adhere to the highest moral principles;

* give a full day's labor for a full day's pay;

* never discriminate unfairly by dispensing special favors;

* never accept favors or benefits that might be construed as influencing the performance of governmental duties;

* make no private promises binding on the duties of office;

* engage in no business with the Government inconsistent with the performance of governmental duties; and

* never use information received confidentially in the performance of governmental duties for making private profit.

The Code of Ethics for Government Service was adopted as a Concurrent Resolution expressing the ``sense of Congress,'' (FOOTNOTE 63) rather than as a statute. This Committee has concluded, however, that the ethical precepts set forth in this Code ``represent continuing traditional standards of ethical conduct to be observed by Members of the House at all times.'' (FOOTNOTE 64)

(FOOTNOTE 63) Lewis Deschler ∧ Wm. Holmes Brown, Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 373, ch. 24, sec.1.3 (4th ed. 1982).

(FOOTNOTE 64) H. Rep. No. 94-1364, supra note 12, at 3.

Formal charges may be brought against Members of the House for violating this Code. In one instance, the House reprimanded a Member based on charges concerning his use of official position for financial gain and receipt of benefits under circumstances that might have been construed as influencing official duties. There the Member took official actions that enhanced the value of his personal financial holdings. (FOOTNOTE 65) In another case, the House reprimanded a Member found responsible for permitting official resources to be diverted to his former law partner (by allowing him use of Government furniture, photocopy services, supplies, and long distance telephone service over a nine year period) in violation of paragraph 5 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service and 31 U.S.C. sec.1301(a) (``[a]ppropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law''). (FOOTNOTE 66)

(FOOTNOTE 65) Id. See Code of Ethics for Government Service para.5, supra note 1.

(FOOTNOTE 66) See House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, in the Matter of Representative Austin J. Murphy, H. Rep. No. 100-485, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1987); 133 Cong. Rec. H11686-96 (daily ed. Dec. 18, 1987) (debate and reprimand).

(FOOTNOTE 67) House Rule 10, cl. 4(e)(1)(D).

(FOOTNOTE 68) 2 U.S.C. sec.29d(i)(4); 5 U.S.C. app. 7, sec.504(b); Comm. Rule 3(l)-(m).

(FOOTNOTE 69) See United States v. Hedges, 912 F.2d 1397, 1404-1406 (11th Cir. 1990); 5U.S.C. app. 7, sec. 504(b).