Ethics Office
On March 11, 2008, the House enacted legislation (H.Res. 895) to strengthen congressional ethics enforcement with a new Office of Congressional Ethics. This will bring greater accountability and transparency to the ethics enforcement process by requiring, for the first time in history, an independent review of alleged ethics violations by individuals who are not Members of Congress.
- This will respond to the needs of the House and the demands of the public, with assurances that credible allegations of wrongdoing will be examined by the Ethics Committee.
- To change the way business is done in Washington, the measure requires public disclosure, for the first time, at key stages in the ethics process with reasonable timeframes for action. This is critical so that the public, as well as Members of Congress, know that the process is working and that pressing matters are being reviewed.
- To strengthen bipartisanship within the independent panel, the measure has been changed to require a member from each party to initiate a review, members of the panel to be jointly appointed, and three members to move forward from a preliminary to second-phase review. These changes would “deter [the Leaders] from picking partisan pit bulls,” and include “safeguards against partisan retribution or a vengeful or ambitious staff” according to congressional expert Norman Orstein.
- It is supported by public interest groups, including Common Cause, U.S. PIRG, and Democracy 21, and experts such as Norman Ornstein at the American Enterprise Institute and Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute, and builds on our earlier progress in enacting the most sweeping lobbying and ethics reforms in a generation, hailed by public interest groups as a “sea change for citizens” and “landmark reform.”
- In just the last Congress, Republican leaders brought up changes to both ethics rules (H.Res. 241) and earmark rules (H.Res. 1003) under this process, which provides one hour of debate and a vote.
- The Speaker appointed a bipartisan task force to develop this proposal, but Republicans waited until the 11th hour to come forward with an alternative. The House has taken the last two weeks to consider those recommendations, and has made some changes responding to some of these concerns. The Speaker has also noted that the task force can continue to look at some of Republican ethics reform proposals.
Establishes an Independent Office of Congressional Ethics
- The resolution establishes an Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), as an independent office within the House. The office would be led by a panel of six board members appointed jointly by the House Speaker and the Minority Leader. The Speaker nominates three OCE members subject to concurrence of Minority Leader. Minority Leader nominates three OCE members subject to concurrence of Speaker. Current House members and lobbyists would be ineligible to serve on the new panel. (The original proposal permitted separate appointment if congressional leaders could not reach agreement in 90 days.)
- The commission would screen ethics allegations made against House members and pass matters along to the House Ethics Committee for their review. The OCE has the responsibility to make findings of fact regarding a potential ethics matter and to recommend to the House Ethics Committee whether the matter should be the subject of a further inquiry by the Ethics Committee. The OCE shall not offer conclusions regarding the validity of the allegations or the guilt or innocence of the person subject to the review – such matters are solely under the purview of the Ethics Committee.
- If the panel's preliminary review finds no merit, it could terminate the review and there would be no public announcement of the matter required.
- Under the proposal as amended, preliminary reviews can be initiated only pursuant to a bipartisan request of two members -- one initiating member nominated by the Speaker and the other by the Minority Leader. (The original proposal did not specify that the two members be bipartisan.) Board must notify both the person who is the subject of the review and the Ethics Committee at each step in process.
- Under the proposal as amended, at least three members of the OCE must affirmatively vote to go beyond a preliminary review. This effectively requires the original two, jointly appointed, bipartisan members to convince at least one more jointly appointed member that more information is needed to make a thoughtful decision on an allegation. (The initial proposal required four OCE board members to vote to terminate a review before the second phase.)
- This panel would be able to move quickly to clear Members’ names if they are being attacked unfairly, and it could move to make sure that serious questions raised about the conduct of a lawmaker would get real scrutiny with the credibility that comes from its independent status. For example, the preliminary review phase is limited to 30 calendar or 5 legislative days, whichever is longer. By the end of that time, the Board may vote to terminate its review, and no publication is required. The second-phase review is set at 45 calendar or 5 legislative days, whichever is longer, with one extension of 14 calendar days possible.
Brings Transparency and Accountability to the Congressional Ethics Process
- There are reasonable time limits for the ethics committee to act on the report — and significantly, provisions that would eventually require release of the independent panel’s report to the public if the Ethics Committee simply sat on the report. The measure sets strict timelines and guarantees public comment by the Ethics Committee in most cases once a second phase review by the OCE is initiated.
- The Ethics Committee has 45 calendar or 5 legislative days from date of referral to review the matter. At the end of that time, the Committee must issue commentary on status, along with the Report and Findings of the Board, unless the Board and the Committee agree it should be dismissed. This time frame can be extended for up to 45 days by a vote of the Ethics Committee. The resolution requires an announcement if the matter is deferred at the request of an appropriate law enforcement authority or when an investigative subcommittee is established. If no conclusion by the Ethics Committee is reached after one year, the Board’s Report is published.