[House Report 108-806]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                 Union Calendar No. 491

108th Congress 
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
                                                                108-806
_______________________________________________________________________


                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

                      ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                               __________

                                A REPORT

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON

                     STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




January 3, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed











               COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado,
  Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio

                                     ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia,
                                       Ranking Minority Member
                                     STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
                                     GENE GREEN, Texas
                                     LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
                                     MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

                                 Staff

              John E. Vargo, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
                 Paul M. Lewis, Counsel to the Chairman
     Mary Colleen McCarty, Assistant to the Ranking Minority Member
                        Carol E. Dixon, Counsel
                   Kenneth E. Kellner, Senior Counsel
                        Susan L. Olson, Counsel
                   John Sassaman, Jr., Senior Counsel
                     Peter Van Hartesveldt, Counsel
                     Amelia Snider, Staff Assistant
                Peter L. Johnson, Systems Administrator
                 Joanne White, Administrative Assistant






                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                   Washington, DC, January 3, 2005.
Hon. Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Trandahl: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of Rule XI of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, we hereby submit to 
the House a Report on the Activities of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct for the 108th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                   Joel Hefley,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Alan B. Mollohan,
                                           Ranking Minority Member.









                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
I. Introduction..................................................     1
II. Advice and Education.........................................    11
    Publications.................................................    12
    Briefings....................................................    13
    Advisory Opinion Letters.....................................    14
III. Financial Disclosure, Foreign Gifts and Decorations, and 
  Travel Disclosure..............................................    14
IV. Committee Rules..............................................    15
V. Investigations................................................    16
    Investigation of Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the 
      Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
      Act of 2003................................................    16
    Representative Tom DeLay.....................................    19
    Representative James McDermott...............................    21
Appendix I.......................................................    23
Appendix II......................................................    55
Appendix III.....................................................    61
Appendix IV......................................................    69










                                                 Union Calendar No. 491
108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-806
======================================================================
 
                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

                      ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

January 3, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Hefley and Mr. Mollohan, from the Committee on Standards of 
               Official Conduct, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                            I. Introduction

    House Rule XI, Clause 1(d), requires each committee to 
submit to the House, not later than January 2 of each odd-
numbered year, a report on the activities of that committee 
under that rule and House Rule X during the Congress ending on 
January 3 of that year.
    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct (``Committee'') is defined in Clauses 1(p) and 11(g)(4) 
of House Rule X, Clause 3 of House Rule XI, and Clause 5(f) of 
House Rule XXV. The text of those provisions is as follows:

                          Rule X, Clause 1(p)

    1. There shall be in the House the following standing 
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and 
related functions assigned by this clause and clauses 2, 3, and 
4 . . .
    * * *
    (p) Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

                      The Code of Official Conduct

                        Rule X, Clause 11(g)(4)

    (4) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall 
investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence or 
intelligence-related information by a Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House in 
violation of subparagraph (3) and report to the House 
concerning any allegation that it finds to be substantiated.

                           Rule XI, Clause 3

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
    3. (a) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has 
the following functions:
    (1) 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 for 
Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and 
employees of the House. A letter of reproval or other 
administrative action of the committee pursuant to an 
investigation under subparagraph (2) shall only be issued or 
implemented as a part of a report required by such 
subparagraph.
    (2) The committee may investigate, subject to paragraph 
(b), an alleged violation by a Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House of the Code of 
Official Conduct or of a law, rule, regulation, or other 
standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee in the 
performance of his duties or the discharge of his 
responsibilities. After notice and hearing (unless the right to 
a hearing is waived by the Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer, or employee), the committee shall report 
to the House its findings of fact and recommendations, if any, 
for the final disposition of any such investigation and such 
action as the committee may consider appropriate in the 
circumstances.
    (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 by a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House, of a law applicable to the performance of his duties or 
the discharge of his responsibilities that may have been 
disclosed in a committee investigation.
    (4) The committee may consider the request of a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House for an advisory opinion with respect to the general 
propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee. With 
appropriate deletions to ensure the privacy of the person 
concerned, the committee may publish such opinion for the 
guidance of other Members, Delegates, the Resident 
Commissioner, officers, and employees of the House.
    (5) The committee may consider the request of a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House for a written waiver in exceptional circumstances with 
respect to clause 4 of rule XXIII.
    (b)(1)(A) Unless approved by an affirmative vote of a 
majority of its members, the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct may not report a resolution, report, recommendation, or 
advisory opinion relating to the official conduct of a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House, or, except as provided in subparagraph (2), undertake an 
investigation of such conduct.
    (B)(i) Upon the receipt of information offered as a 
complaint that is in compliance with this rule and the rules of 
the committee, the chairman and ranking minority member jointly 
may appoint members to serve as an investigative subcommittee.
    (ii) The chairman and ranking minority member of the 
committee jointly may gather additional information concerning 
alleged conduct that is the basis of a complaint or of 
information offered as 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 
an investigative subcommittee.
    (2) Except in the case of an investigation undertaken by 
the committee on its own initiative, the committee may 
undertake an investigation relating to the official conduct of 
an individual Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
or employee of the House only
    (A) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, in 
writing and under oath, from a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner and transmitted to the committee by such Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner; or
    (B) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, in 
writing and under oath, from a person not a Member, Delegate, 
or Resident Commissioner provided that a Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner certifies in writing to the committee 
that he believes the information is submitted in good faith and 
warrants the review and consideration of the committee.
    If a complaint is not disposed of within the applicable 
periods set forth in the rules of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct, the chairman and ranking minority member 
shall establish jointly an investigative subcommittee and 
forward the complaint, or any portion thereof, to that 
subcommittee for its consideration. However, if at any time 
during those periods either the chairman or ranking minority 
member places on the agenda the issue of whether to establish 
an investigative subcommittee, then an investigative 
subcommittee may be established only by an affirmative vote of 
a majority of the members of the committee.
    (3) The committee may not undertake an investigation of an 
alleged violation of a law, rule, regulation, or standard of 
conduct that was not in effect at the time of the alleged 
violation. The committee may not undertake an investigation of 
such an alleged violation that occurred before the third 
previous Congress unless the committee determines that the 
alleged violation is directly related to an alleged violation 
that occurred in a more recent Congress.
    (4) A member of the committee shall be ineligible to 
participate as a member of the committee in a committee 
proceeding relating to the member's official conduct. Whenever 
a member of the committee is ineligible to act as a member of 
the committee under the preceding sentence, the Speaker shall 
designate a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner from the 
same political party as the ineligible member to act in any 
proceeding of the committee relating to that conduct.
    (5) A member of the committee may disqualify himself from 
participating in an investigation of the conduct of a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House upon the submission in writing and under oath of an 
affidavit of disqualification stating that the member cannot 
render an impartial and unbiased decision in the case in which 
the member seeks to be disqualified. If the committee approves 
and accepts such affidavit of disqualification, the chairman 
shall so notify the Speaker and request the Speaker to 
designate a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner from the 
same political party as the disqualifying member to act in any 
proceeding of the committee relating to that case.
    (6) Information or testimony received, or the contents of a 
complaint or the fact of its filing, may not be publicly 
disclosed by any committee or staff member unless specifically 
authorized in each instance by a vote of the full committee.
    (7) The committee shall have the functions designated in 
titles I and V of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 [on 
financial disclosure and the limitations on outside earned 
income and outside employment], in sections 7342 [the Foreign 
Gifts and Decorations Act], 7351 [on gifts to superiors], and 
7353 [on gifts] of title 5, United States Code, and in clause 
11(g)(4) of rule X.
    (c)(1) Notwithstanding clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI, each 
meeting of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or a 
subcommittee thereof shall occur in executive session unless 
the committee or subcommittee, by an affirmative vote of a 
majority of its members, opens the meeting to the public.
    (2) Notwithstanding clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI, each hearing 
of an adjudicatory subcommittee or sanction hearing of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall be held in 
open session unless the committee or subcommittee, in open 
session by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, 
closes all or part of the remainder of the hearing on that day 
to the public.
    (d) Before a member, officer, or employee of the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct, including members of a 
subcommittee of the committee selected under clause 5(a)(4) of 
rule X and shared staff, may have access to information that is 
confidential under the rules of the committee, the following 
oath (or affirmation) shall be executed:
    ``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose, 
to any person or entity outside the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct, any information received in the course of my 
service with the committee, except as authorized by the 
committee or in accordance with its rules.''
    Copies of the executed oath shall be retained by the Clerk 
as part of the records of the House. This paragraph establishes 
a standard of conduct within the meaning of paragraph (a)(2). 
Breaches of confidentiality shall be investigated by the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and appropriate 
action shall be taken.
    (e)(1) If a complaint or information offered as a complaint 
is deemed frivolous by an affirmative vote of a majority of the 
members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the 
committee may take such action as it, by an affirmative vote of 
a majority of its members, considers appropriate in the 
circumstances.
    (2) Complaints filed before the One Hundred Fifth Congress 
may not be deemed frivolous by the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.
Committee agendas
    (f) The committee shall adopt rules providing that the 
chairman shall establish the agenda for meetings of the 
committee, but shall not preclude the ranking minority member 
from placing any item on the agenda.
Committee staff
    (g)(1) The committee shall adopt rules providing that--
    (A) the staff be assembled and retained as a professional, 
nonpartisan staff;
    (B) each member of the staff shall be professional and 
demonstrably qualified for the position for which he is hired;
    (C) the staff as a whole and each member of the staff shall 
perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner;
    (D) no member of the staff shall engage in any partisan 
political activity directly affecting any congressional or 
presidential election;
    (E) no member of the staff or outside counsel may accept 
public speaking engagements or write for publication on any 
subject that is in any way related to his or her employment or 
duties with the committee without specific prior approval from 
the chairman and ranking minority member; and
    (F) no member of the staff or outside counsel may make 
public, unless approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of 
the members of the committee, any information, document, or 
other material that is confidential, derived from executive 
session, or classified and that is obtained during the course 
of employment with the committee.
    (2) Only subdivisions (C), (E), and (F) of subparagraph (1) 
shall apply to shared staff.
    (3)(A) All staff members shall be appointed by an 
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the committee. 
Such vote shall occur at the first meeting of the membership of 
the committee during each Congress and as necessary during the 
Congress.
    (B) Subject to the approval of the Committee on House 
Administration, the committee may retain counsel not employed 
by the House of Representatives whenever the committee 
determines, by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members 
of the committee, that the retention of outside counsel is 
necessary and appropriate.
    (C) If the committee determines that it is necessary to 
retain staff members for the purpose of a particular 
investigation or other proceeding, then such staff shall be 
retained only for the duration of that particular investigation 
or proceeding.
    (D) Outside counsel may be dismissed before the end of a 
contract between the committee and such counsel only by an 
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the committee.
    (4) In addition to any other staff provided for by law, 
rule, or other authority, with respect to the committee, the 
chairman and ranking minority member each may appoint one 
individual as a shared staff member from his or her personal 
staff to perform service for the committee. Such shared staff 
may assist the chairman or ranking minority member on any 
subcommittee on which he serves.
Meetings and hearings
    (h)(1) The committee shall adopt rules providing that--
    (A) all meetings or hearings of the committee or any 
subcommittee thereof, other than any hearing held by an 
adjudicatory subcommittee or any sanction hearing held by the 
committee, shall occur in executive session unless the 
committee or subcommittee by an affirmative vote of a majority 
of its members opens the meeting or hearing to the public; and
    (B) any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee or any 
sanction hearing held by the committee shall be open to the 
public unless the committee or subcommittee by an affirmative 
vote of a majority of its members closes the hearing to the 
public.
Public disclosure
    (i) The committee shall adopt rules providing that, unless 
otherwise determined by a vote of the committee, only the 
chairman or ranking minority member, after consultation with 
each other, may make public statements regarding matters before 
the committee or any subcommittee thereof.
Requirements to constitute a complaint
    (j) The committee shall adopt rules regarding complaints to 
provide that whenever information offered as a complaint is 
submitted to the committee, the chairman and ranking minority 
member shall have 14 calendar days or five legislative days, 
whichever is sooner, to determine whether the information meets 
the requirements of the rules of the committee for what 
constitutes a complaint.
Duties of chairman and ranking minority member regarding properly filed 
        complaints
    (k)(1) The committee shall adopt rules providing that 
whenever the chairman and ranking minority member jointly 
determine that information submitted to the committee meets the 
requirements of the rules of the committee for what constitutes 
a complaint, they shall have 45 calendar days or five 
legislative days, whichever is later, after that determination 
(unless the committee by an affirmative vote of a majority of 
its members votes otherwise) to--
    (A) recommend to the committee that it dispose of the 
complaint, or any portion thereof, in any manner that does not 
require action by the House, which may include dismissal of the 
complaint or resolution of the complaint by a letter to the 
Member, officer, or employee of the House against whom the 
complaint is made;
    (B) establish an investigative subcommittee; or
    (C) request that the committee extend the applicable 45-
calendar day or five-legislative day period by one additional 
45-calendar day period when they determine more time is 
necessary in order to make a recommendation under subdivision 
(A).
    (2) The committee shall adopt rules providing that if the 
chairman and ranking minority member jointly determine that 
information submitted to the committee meets the requirements 
of the rules of the committee for what constitutes a complaint, 
and the complaint is not disposed of within the applicable time 
periods under subparagraph (1), then they shall establish an 
investigative subcommittee and forward the complaint, or any 
portion thereof, to that subcommittee for its consideration. 
However, if, at any time during those periods, either the 
chairman or ranking minority member places on the agenda the 
issue of whether to establish an investigative subcommittee, 
then an investigative subcommittee may be established only by 
an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
committee.
Duties of chairman and ranking minority member regarding information 
        not constituting a complaint
    (l) The committee shall adopt rules providing that whenever 
the chairman and ranking minority member jointly determine that 
information submitted to the committee does not meet the 
requirements of the rules of the committee for what constitutes 
a complaint, they may--
    (1) return the information to the complainant with a 
statement that it fails to meet the requirements of the rules 
of the committee for what constitutes a complaint; or
    (2) recommend to the committee that it authorize the 
establishment of an investigative subcommittee.
Investigative and adjudicatory subcommittees
    (m) The committee shall adopt rules providing that--
    (1)(A) an investigative subcommittee shall be composed of 
four Members (with equal representation from the majority and 
minority parties) whenever such a subcommittee is established 
pursuant to the rules of the committee;
    (B) an adjudicatory subcommittee shall be composed of the 
members of the committee who did not serve on the pertinent 
investigative subcommittee (with equal representation from the 
majority and minority parties) whenever such a subcommittee is 
established pursuant to the rules of the committee; and
    (C) notwithstanding any other provision of this clause, the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the committee may 
consult with an investigative subcommittee either on their own 
initiative or on the initiative of the subcommittee, shall have 
access to information before a subcommittee with which they so 
consult, and shall not thereby be precluded from serving as 
full, voting members of any adjudicatory subcommittee;
    (2) at the time of appointment, the chairman shall 
designate one member of a subcommittee to serve as chairman and 
the ranking minority member shall designate one member of the 
subcommittee to serve as the ranking minority member; and
    (3) the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
committee may serve as members of an investigative 
subcommittee, but may not serve as non-voting, ex officio 
members.
Standard of proof for adoption of statement of alleged violation
    (n) The committee shall adopt rules to provide that an 
investigative subcommittee may adopt a statement of alleged 
violation only if it determines by an affirmative vote of a 
majority of the members of the subcommittee that there is 
substantial reason to believe that a violation of the Code of 
Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation, or other 
standard of conduct applicable to the performance of official 
duties or the discharge of official responsibilities by a 
Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives, 
has occurred.
Subcommittee powers
    (o)(1) The committee shall adopt rules providing that an 
investigative subcommittee or an adjudicatory subcommittee may 
authorize and issue subpoenas only when authorized by an 
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
subcommittee.
    (2) The committee shall adopt rules providing that an 
investigative subcommittee may, upon an affirmative vote of a 
majority of its members, expand the scope of its investigation 
approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of 
the committee.
    (3) The committee shall adopt rules to provide that--
    (A) an investigative subcommittee may, upon an affirmative 
vote of a majority of its members, amend its statement of 
alleged violation anytime before the statement of alleged 
violation is transmitted to the committee; and
    (B) if an investigative subcommittee amends its statement 
of alleged violation, the respondent shall be notified in 
writing and shall have 30 calendar days from the date of that 
notification to file an answer to the amended statement of 
alleged violation.
Due process rights of respondents
    (p) The committee shall adopt rules to provide that--
    (1) not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote 
by an investigative subcommittee on a statement of alleged 
violation, the subcommittee shall provide the respondent with a 
copy of the statement of alleged violation it intends to adopt 
together with all evidence it intends to use to prove those 
charges which it intends to adopt, including documentary 
evidence, witness testimony, memoranda of witness interviews, 
and physical evidence, unless the subcommittee by an 
affirmative vote of a majority of its members decides to 
withhold certain evidence in order to protect a witness; but if 
such evidence is withheld, the subcommittee shall inform the 
respondent that evidence is being withheld and of the count to 
which such evidence relates;
    (2) neither the respondent nor his counsel shall, directly 
or indirectly, contact the subcommittee or any member thereof 
during the period of time set forth in paragraph (1) except for 
the sole purpose of settlement discussions where counsel for 
the respondent and the subcommittee are present;
    (3) if, at any time after the issuance of a statement of 
alleged violation, the committee or any subcommittee thereof 
determines that it intends to use evidence not provided to a 
respondent under paragraph (1) to prove the charges contained 
in the statement of alleged violation (or any amendment 
thereof), such evidence shall be made immediately available to 
the respondent, and it may be used in any further proceeding 
under the rules of the committee;
    (4) evidence provided pursuant to paragraph (1) or (3) 
shall be made available to the respondent and his or her 
counsel only after each agrees, in writing, that no document, 
information, or other materials obtained pursuant to that 
paragraph shall be made public until--
    (A) such time as a statement of alleged violation is made 
public by the committee if the respondent has waived the 
adjudicatory hearing; or
    (B) the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing if the 
respondent has not waived an adjudicatory hearing; but the 
failure of respondent and his counsel to so agree in writing, 
and their consequent failure to receive the evidence, shall not 
preclude the issuance of a statement of alleged violation at 
the end of the period referred to in paragraph (1);
    (5) a respondent shall receive written notice whenever--
    (A) the chairman and ranking minority member determine that 
information the committee has received constitutes a complaint;
    (B) a complaint or allegation is transmitted to an 
investigative subcommittee;
    (C) an investigative subcommittee votes to authorize its 
first subpoena or to take testimony under oath, whichever 
occurs first; or
    (D) an investigative subcommittee votes to expand the scope 
of its investigation;
    (6) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a 
statement of alleged violation and a respondent enters into an 
agreement with that subcommittee to settle a complaint on which 
that statement is based, that agreement, unless the respondent 
requests otherwise, shall be in writing and signed by the 
respondent and respondent's counsel, the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the subcommittee, and the outside counsel, 
if any;
    (7) statements or information derived solely from a 
respondent or his counsel during any settlement discussions 
between the committee or a subcommittee thereof and the 
respondent shall not be included in any report of the 
subcommittee or the committee or otherwise publicly disclosed 
without the consent of the respondent; and
    (8) whenever a motion to establish an investigative 
subcommittee does not prevail, the committee shall promptly 
send a letter to the respondent informing him of such vote.
Committee reporting requirements
    (q) The committee shall adopt rules to provide that--
    (1) whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a 
statement of alleged violation and transmits a report to that 
effect to the committee, the committee may by an affirmative 
vote of a majority of its members transmit such report to the 
House of Representatives;
    (2) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a 
statement of alleged violation, the respondent admits to the 
violations set forth in such statement, the respondent waives 
his or her right to an adjudicatory hearing, and the 
respondent's waiver is approved by the committee--
    (A) the subcommittee shall prepare a report for transmittal 
to the committee, a final draft of which shall be provided to 
the respondent not less than 15 calendar days before the 
subcommittee votes on whether to adopt the report;
    (B) the respondent may submit views in writing regarding 
the final draft to the subcommittee within seven calendar days 
of receipt of that draft;
    (C) the subcommittee shall transmit a report to the 
committee regarding the statement of alleged violation together 
with any views submitted by the respondent pursuant to 
subdivision (B), and the committee shall make the report 
together with the respondent's views available to the public 
before the commencement of any sanction hearing; and
    (D) the committee shall by an affirmative vote of a 
majority of its members issue a report and transmit such report 
to the House of Representatives, together with the respondent's 
views previously submitted pursuant to subdivision (B) and any 
additional views respondent may submit for attachment to the 
final report; and
    (3) members of the committee shall have not less than 72 
hours to review any report transmitted to the committee by an 
investigative subcommittee before both the commencement of a 
sanction hearing and the committee vote on whether to adopt the 
report.

                      House Rule XXV, Clause 5(f)

    (f) All the provisions of this clause [the gift rule] shall 
be interpreted and enforced solely by the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct. The Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct is authorized to issue guidance on any matter 
contained in this clause.

Paragraphs (f) through (q) of Clause 3 of House Rule XI were 
added in the 108th Congress, and they codify certain provisions 
that had been adopted pursuant to the Report of the Ethics 
Reform Task Force of 1997 and had in prior Congresses been set 
out in separate orders adopted by the House.
    In addition, a number of provisions of statutory law confer 
authority on the Committee. Specifically, for purposes of the 
statutes on gifts to Federal employees (5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353) and 
gifts to superiors (5 U.S.C. Sec. 7351), both the Committee and 
the House of Representatives are the ``supervising ethics 
office'' of House Members, officers and employees. In addition, 
as discussed further in Part III below, for House Members and 
staff, the Committee is both the ``supervising ethics office'' 
with regard to financial disclosure and the ``employing 
agency'' for certain purposes under the Foreign Gifts and 
Decorations Act. Finally, the outside employment and earned 
income limitations are administered by the Committee with 
respect to House Members and staff (5 U.S.C. app. 4 
Sec. 503(1)(A)).

                        II. Advice and Education

    Pursuant to a provision of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (2 
U.S.C. Sec. 29d(i)), the Committee maintains an Office of 
Advice and Education, which is staffed as directed by the 
Committee's Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. Under the 
statute, the primary responsibilities of the Office include the 
following:
           Providing information and guidance to House 
        Members, officers and employees on the laws, rules and 
        other standards of conduct applicable to them in their 
        official capacities, including the interpretations and 
        advisory opinions issued by the Committee;
           Drafting responses to specific advisory 
        opinion requests received from House Members and staff, 
        and submitting them to the Chairman and Ranking 
        Minority Member for review and approval;
           Drafting advisory memoranda on the ethics 
        rules for general distribution to House Members and 
        staff, and submitting them to the Chairman and Ranking 
        Member, or the full Committee, for review and approval; 
        and
           Developing and carrying out periodic 
        educational briefings for Members and staff.

The duties of the Office of Advice and Education are also 
addressed in Committee Rule 3, and in addition that rule sets 
out requirements and procedures for the issuance of Committee 
advisory opinions.
    As an inducement to Members and staff to seek Committee 
advice whenever they have any uncertainty on the applicable 
laws, rules or standards, statutory law (2 U.S.C. 
Sec. 29d(i)(4)) provides that no information provided to the 
Committee by a Member or staff person when seeking advice on 
prospective conduct may be used as a basis for initiating a 
Committee investigation, if the individual acts in accordance 
with the Committee's written advice. In the same vein, 
Committee Rule 3(j) provides that the Committee may take no 
adverse action in regard to any conduct that has been 
undertaken in reliance on a written opinion of the Committee if 
the conduct conforms to the specific facts addressed in the 
opinion.
    A further inducement for Members and staff to seek 
Committee guidance is that under Committee Rule 3(i), the 
Committee will keep confidential any request for advice from a 
Member, officer or employee, as well as any response to such a 
request. In addition, it is the Committee's understanding that 
courts will consider the good faith reliance of a House Member, 
officer or employee on Committee advice as a defense to any 
Justice Department prosecution regarding the particular 
conduct.
    The Committee believes that a broad, active program for 
advice and education is an extremely important means for 
attaining understanding of, and compliance with, the ethics 
rules. The specifics of the Committee's efforts in the areas of 
publications, briefings, and advisory opinion letters during 
the 108th Congress are set forth below. In addition, on 
practically a daily basis Committee staff attorneys provided 
informal advice in response to inquiries received from Members, 
staff persons and others in telephone calls and e-mails 
directed to the Committee office, and in meetings.

                              PUBLICATIONS

    The Committee's major publications are the House Ethics 
Manual and two more recently issued booklets that update 
portions of the Manual. One of the booklets, Rules of the U.S. 
House of Representatives on Gifts and Travel (issued in April 
2000), provides a detailed explanation of gift and travel rules 
applicable to House Members, officers and employees. The other 
booklet, Laws, Rules and Standards of Conduct on Campaign 
Activity (issued in December 2001), provides guidance for House 
Members, officers and employees when they engage in campaign or 
political activity. These two booklets supersede Chapters 2 and 
8, respectively, of the 1992 House Ethics Manual.
    The Committee updates and expands upon the materials in the 
Manual and the booklets, as well as highlights matters of 
particular concern, through the issuance of advisory memoranda 
and letters to all Members and staff. The letters and memoranda 
issued during the 108th Congress were as follows:
           Salary Levels at which the Outside Earned 
        Income Limitation, the Outside Employment Limitations, 
        the Financial Disclosure Requirement, and the Post-
        Employment Restrictions Apply for Calendar Year 2003 
        (January 16, 2003),
           Recent Gift Rule Amendments (April 11, 
        2003),
           Reminders on the Travel Rules (October 30, 
        2003),
           Letter on Medical Practice by House Members 
        and Senior Staff (December 8, 2003),
           Laws, Rules and Standards Governing Campaign 
        Activity (December 8, 2003),
           Dear Colleague from the Chairman and Ranking 
        Minority Member regarding the activities and practices 
        of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
        (March 11, 2004),
           Salary Levels at which the Outside Earned 
        Income Limitation, the Outside Employment Limitations, 
        the Financial Disclosure Requirement, and the Post-
        Employment Restrictions Apply for Calendar Year 2004 
        (March 17, 2004),
           National Political Conventions (May 13, 
        2004),
           Rules and Standards Relating to Member and 
        Staff Activities at the National Political Conventions 
        (June 17, 2004),
           Campaign Work by Congressional Staff Members 
        (June 22, 2004),
           Post-Employment and Related Restrictions for 
        Members and Officers (November 18, 2004),
           Post-Employment and Related Restrictions for 
        Staff (November 18, 2004), and
           Member Swearing-in and Inauguration Day 
        Receptions, and Attendance at Inaugural-Related Events 
        (December 7, 2004).
    The advisory memorandum of April 11, 2003, addressed two 
amendments to the gift rule (House Rule XXV, clause 5) that 
were made at the beginning of the 108th Congress: one on 
perishable food sent to House offices for staff, and the other 
on Member or staff travel to charity events. The purpose of the 
memorandum was to advise Members and staff of the many 
considerations that apply to the acceptance of a gift under 
either of these new provisions.
    In addition to the advisory memoranda listed above, the 
Committee issued updated versions of its summary memorandum, 
Highlights of the House Ethics Rules, in January 2003 and March 
2004. In 2004, the Committee also issued a historical summary 
chart of ethics proceedings in the House. Copies of all 
Committee publications are available from the Committee office, 
and their text is posted on the Committee's Web site.

                               BRIEFINGS

    As part of its outreach and educational efforts during the 
108th Congress, the Committee conducted numerous briefings for 
House Members and staff on the ethics rules. These included 
briefings to which all House Members and staff were invited, as 
well as briefings for individual Member, committee and other 
House offices. Committee staff also participated in briefings 
sponsored by the Congressional Research Service for district 
office staff members and in briefings sponsored by outside 
organizations, and the Committee had an information booth at 
the House Services Fair held annually by the CAO.
    In addition to briefings on financial disclosure (discussed 
further in the next section), Committee staff held nine 
briefings during 2003 and 2004 that were open to all House 
Members, officers and employees. Six of those briefings 
provided a general overview of the ethics rules, and the other 
three held in January, April and September 2004, were focused 
on the rules applicable to campaign activity. The Committee 
will continue this outreach activity in the 109th Congress.
    The Committee also made a presentation to the Members-elect 
of the 109th Congress as part of the New Member Orientation. 
Copies of the Highlights of the House Ethics Rules memorandum 
and a memorandum noting points of particular interest to 
Members-elect were provided to each new Member as part of the 
orientation process, and each was offered an individual 
briefing for the Member and his or her staff.
    Staff also received numerous requests for briefings from 
visiting international dignitaries. Visitors from countries in 
Eastern Europe and the Middle East were particularly interested 
in the House ethics rules and procedures.

                        ADVISORY OPINION LETTERS

    The Committee's Office of Advice and Education, under the 
direction and supervision of the Committee's Chairman and 
Ranking Minority Member, prepared over 915 private advisory 
opinions during the 108th Congress. Opinions issued by the 
Committee in the 108th Congress addressed a wide range of 
subjects, including various provisions of the gift rule, travel 
funded by outside entities, Member or staff participation in 
fund-raising activities of charities and for other purposes, 
the outside earned income and employment limitations, campaign 
activity by staff, and the post-employment restrictions.

 III. Financial Disclosure, Foreign Gifts and Decorations, and Travel 
                               Disclosure

    Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended 
(5 U.S.C. app. 4 Sec. Sec. 101-111), requires certain officials 
in all branches of the Federal Government, as well as 
candidates for Federal office, to file publicly available 
statements that set out financial information regarding 
themselves and their families. On May 15th of each year, the 
covered officials are required to file a statement that 
provides information for the preceding calendar year.
    The Act designates the Committee as the ``supervising 
ethics office'' of House Members, officers and employees for 
purposes of financial disclosure and provides that the 
Committee is to administer the Act with regard to those 
officials. The Committee establishes policy, issues 
instructions, and designs the Financial Disclosure Statements 
to be filed by Members, officers, legislative branch employees, 
and candidates for the House. After Statements are filed with 
the Legislative Resource Center of the Clerk of the House, they 
are forwarded to the Committee to be reviewed for compliance 
with the law. Accountants from the General Accounting Office 
assist the Committee in its review efforts.
    Each year the Committee publishes a detailed instruction 
booklet that is sent to each person required to file with the 
Clerk of the House. Prior to the May 15th filing date, the 
Committee also provides briefings on the financial disclosure 
requirements that are open to all Members, officers and 
employees, as well as a briefing for Members only. In addition, 
Committee staff members are available to respond to questions 
on financial disclosure, and the Committee encourages Members 
and staff to submit statements in draft form to staff for 
review prior to filing with the Clerk, in order to reduce 
errors and the need for amendments.
    In calendar years 2003 and 2004, the Legislative Resource 
Center referred a total of 5,134 financial disclosure 
statements to the Committee for review under the statute, 
including statements of candidates for the House. Where the 
Committee review indicates that a filed statement has a 
deficiency, such as a failure to include required information, 
the Committee requests an amendment from the filer. The 
Committee also follows up with any filer whose statement 
indicates non-compliance with applicable law, such as the 
outside employment and earned income limitations. Where the 
Committee finds that a Member or staff person has received 
income in violation of any of these limitations, the Committee 
determines the appropriate remedy for the violation, which may 
include a requirement that the individual repay the amount that 
was improperly received.
    Pursuant to its responsibilities under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342, 
the Committee also continued its activities in implementing the 
Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, including the disclosure and 
reporting requirements of the Act, and responded to questions 
from Members and staff regarding the Act. The regulations that 
the Committee has issued under the Act are published in the 
Committee's Gifts & Travel booklet. Reports of gifts from 
foreign governments (including travel and travel expenses) that 
Members and staff file in accordance with this Act are 
available for public inspection at the Committee office upon 
reasonable notice. Pursuant to the Act, the contents of those 
reports are published in the Federal Register on an annual 
basis.
    The Committee staff also reviews the Member Travel 
Disclosure Forms and the Employee Travel Disclosure Forms that 
are filed under the gift rule (House Rule XXV, cl. 5). While 
those forms are filed with and made publicly available by the 
Legislative Resource Center, that office forwards copies of the 
forms as filed to the Committee for review. Where the Committee 
finds that a Member or staff person has improperly accepted 
travel or expenses, the Committee determines the appropriate 
remedy, which may include a requirement that reimbursement be 
made with personal funds.

                          IV. Committee Rules

    At its organizational meeting on March 19, 2003, the 
Committee adopted the Committee Rules for the 108th Congress. 
See Appendix I. These rules were substantially identical to the 
Committee Rules for the 107th Congress, except that several 
rules were reorganized and renumbered for the purpose of 
providing greater organizational clarity, and several minor 
clarifying and conforming amendments were made in the rules 
regarding the Committee's complaint processing, investigative 
and adjudicative procedures. Among the changes made were that 
existing provisions on confidentiality were consolidated into 
one rule, Committee Rule 7, and Committee Rule 2, on 
definitions, was amended to add a definition of the term 
Member, and to revise the definitions of the terms 
Investigative Subcommittee and Adjudicatory Subcommittee.
    In addition, the Committee amended the rule regarding the 
payment of travel fees to witnesses so that it would accord 
with House Rule XI, Clause 5. Committee Rule 26(n), as amended, 
provides, among other things, that subpoenaed witnesses ``shall 
be provided the same per diem rate as established, authorized, 
and regulated by the Committee on House Administration for 
Members, officers and employees of the House, and as the 
Chairman considers appropriate, actual expenses of travel to or 
from the place of examination.''

                           V. Investigations

    A resolution was adopted by the Committee on March 17, 2004 
under which an investigative subcommittee was established to 
investigate allegations made by Representative Nick Smith 
related to voting on the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. In addition, on 
June 15, 2004, a complaint was filed by Representative Chris 
Bell against Representative Tom DeLay.
    As a general matter, unless otherwise disclosed publicly in 
accordance with Committee rules and practices, the Committee 
maintains the confidentiality of any information regarding its 
investigative proceedings, including, but not limited to, the 
fact or nature of any complaints and any other information or 
allegation respecting the conduct of a Member, officer or 
employee. On March 11, 2004, the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member of the Committee issued a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that 
discusses the activities and practices of the Committee, 
particularly with respect to investigation and resolution of 
alleged violations of laws, rules or standards of conduct. See 
Appendix II.

Investigation of Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare 
        Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003

    On March 17, 2004, the Committee adopted a resolution which 
established an Investigative Subcommittee to investigate 
alleged communications received by Representative Nick Smith 
linking support for the congressional candidacy of his son with 
Representative Smith's vote on the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (``Medicare 
Prescription Drug Act'' or ``Medicare legislation''). This 
action was undertaken following certain public statements made 
by Representative Smith relating to the vote on the Medicare 
legislation, and following the conduct of informal fact-
gathering on the matter by the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member of the Committee under Committee Rule 18(a).
    The resolution adopted by the Committee provided as 
follows:
    Whereas Representative Nick Smith has made public 
statements that he received communications linking support for 
the congressional candidacy of his son with Representative 
Smith's vote on the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and 
Modernization Act of 2003; and
    Whereas pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a) the Chairman and 
Ranking Minority jointly engaged in informal fact-finding to 
gather additional information concerning these allegations; and
    Whereas the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee of 
the House, in connection with the aforementioned allegations, 
may violate the Code of Official Conduct or one or more law, 
rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to 
the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee of the House in 
the performance of his or her duties or the discharge of his or 
her responsibilities; and
    Whereas the Committee has authority to investigate such 
conduct pursuant to House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 
(3)(b)(2), and pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3) and 18; and
    Whereas the Committee has determined pursuant to Committee 
Rule 1(c) that the interests of justice require the adoption of 
special procedures in order for the Committee to carry out its 
investigative and enforcement responsibilities with respect to 
the aforementioned allegations;
    It is hereby resolved by the Committee--
    1. That an Investigative Subcommittee be established with 
jurisdiction to conduct a full and complete inquiry and 
investigation into alleged communications received by 
Representative Nick Smith linking support for the congressional 
candidacy of his son with Representative Smith's vote on the 
Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 
2003;
    2. That the scope of the inquiry may extend to any matters 
related to the jurisdiction of the Investigative Subcommittee 
as set forth in this resolution;
    3. That the Investigative Subcommittee is authorized to 
advise the public at large that it is interested in receiving 
information and testimony from any person with first-hand 
information regarding communications received by Representative 
Nick Smith linking support for the congressional candidacy of 
his son with Representative Smith's vote on the Medicare 
Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003;
    4. That at the conclusion of its inquiry, the Investigative 
Subcommittee shall report to the Committee its findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations;
    5. That the Members of the Investigative Subcommittee shall 
be designated pursuant to Committee Rule 19(a);
    6. That Committee Rules 7 (Confidentiality), 8(a) 
(Subcommittees--General Policy and Structure), 9 (Quorums and 
Member Disqualification), and 10 (Vote Requirements) are fully 
applicable to this inquiry by the Investigative Subcommittee;
    7. That the Investigative Subcommittee is authorized to 
obtain evidence and relevant information by the means and in 
the manner set forth in Committee Rules 19(b)-(c), except as 
those rules apply to respondents;
    8. That witnesses before the Investigative Subcommittee 
shall be furnished with a copy of the special procedures for 
this inquiry (as set forth in this resolution), as well as 
accorded the rights set forth in Committee Rules 26(k)-(o);
    9. That the Committee intends that all witnesses who 
provide testimony before the Investigative Subcommittee should 
be sequestered and should not communicate with any other 
witnesses regarding any aspect of their testimony unless the 
Investigative Subcommittee permits otherwise;
    10. That at any point during its inquiry, or at the 
conclusion of its inquiry, the jurisdiction of the 
Investigative Subcommittee may be expanded in accordance with 
the requirements of Committee Rule 19(d) if the Investigative 
Subcommittee obtains information indicating that a Member, 
officer, or employee of the House may have committed a 
violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, 
regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the 
conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the performance 
of his or her duties or the discharge of his or her 
responsibilities. If the scope of jurisdiction of the 
Investigative Subcommittee is expanded to investigate the 
conduct of an identified Member, officer, or employee of the 
House, the inquiry regarding the identified Member, officer, or 
employee shall proceed before the same Investigative 
Subcommittee and in accordance with all the Rules of the 
Committee regarding an inquiry involving a respondent;
    11. That except as otherwise provided in this Resolution, 
the Rules of the Committee shall be applicable in this matter 
and will be interpreted by the Investigative Subcommittee and 
the Committee in a manner not inconsistent with this 
Resolution.
    Representative Kenny C. Hulshof served as Chairman of the 
Investigative Subcommittee, and Representative Michael F. Doyle 
served as its Ranking Minority Member. The other two members of 
the Investigative Subcommittee were Representative John B. 
Shadegg and Representative William D. Delahunt.
    The evidence obtained by the Investigative Subcommittee 
during its inquiry included, but was not limited to, the sworn 
testimony of seventeen Members of the House (including 
Representative Nick Smith, Representative Tom DeLay, and 
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert), and interviews and sworn testimony 
obtained from twelve other witnesses. During the inquiry, 
approximately 1400 pages of transcribed sworn testimony and 
witness statements resulted from proceedings before the 
Investigative Subcommittee or interviews with Investigative 
Subcommittee counsel. In addition, approximately two thousand 
pages of documents were supplied to the Investigative 
Subcommittee in response to subpoenas for documents and 
records.
    The Investigative Subcommittee completed its investigation 
in September of 2004. Pursuant to its charge, at the conclusion 
of its inquiry, the Investigative Subcommittee prepared a 
Report to the full Committee with the Investigative 
Subcommittee's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
    The Report of the Investigative Subcommittee in this matter 
was unanimously adopted by that body on September 29, 2004. On 
that same date, the Investigative Subcommittee transmitted its 
Report to the Committee.
    By unanimous vote on September 30, 2004, the Committee 
adopted the Report of the Investigative Subcommittee and 
included that Report as part of the Committee's Report to the 
House of Representatives in this matter (H. Rep. 108-722). By 
this act of adopting the Investigative Subcommittee's Report, 
the Committee approved and adopted the findings, conclusions, 
and recommendations of the Investigative Subcommittee, 
including the recommendation in the Investigative 
Subcommittee's Report that the publication of its Report would 
serve as a public admonishment by the Committee to 
Representative Nick Smith, Representative Candice Miller, and 
Representative Tom DeLay regarding their conduct as described 
in the Report to the House.
    As explained in the Report, the conduct of Representative 
Smith could support a finding that he violated the House Code 
of Official Conduct. Among other findings regarding 
Representative Smith's conduct in this matter, the 
Investigative Subcommittee found that contrary to public 
statements made by Representative Smith, no group, 
organization, business interest, or corporation of any kind, or 
any individual affiliated with any such entities, offered 
$100,000 or any other specific sum of money to support the 
congressional candidacy of Brad Smith in order to induce 
Representative Nick Smith to vote in favor of the Medicare 
Prescription Drug Act. Similarly, the Investigative 
Subcommittee found that Representative Nick Smith was not 
offered an endorsement or financial support for his son's 
candidacy from the National Republican Congressional Committee 
in exchange for voting in favor of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug Act. Statements made to that effect by Representative 
Smith appear to have been the result of speculation or 
exaggeration on the part of Representative Nick Smith. In 
addition, Representative Smith failed to cooperate fully with 
the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct in their efforts to develop 
information informally about his allegations. As explained in 
the Report, Representative Smith failed to exercise reasonable 
judgment and restraint, and was accountable for making public 
statements that risked impugning the reputation of the House.
    The Investigative Subcommittee also found that 
Representative DeLay offered to endorse Representative Smith's 
son in exchange for Representative Smith's vote in favor of the 
Medicare legislation. In the view of the Investigative 
Subcommittee, this conduct also could support a finding that 
Representative DeLay violated House rules. The Investigative 
Subcommittee concluded that it is improper for a Member to 
offer or link support for the personal interests of another 
Member as part of a quid pro quo to achieve a legislative goal.
    The Investigative Subcommittee reached a similar conclusion 
regarding the conduct of Representative Candice Miller, who 
made a statement to Representative Smith on the House floor 
during the vote on the Medicare legislation that referenced 
thecongressional candidacy of Representative Smith's son. The 
Investigative Subcommittee concluded that Representative Smith fairly 
interpreted Representative Miller's statements to him during the vote 
as a threat of retaliation against him for voting in opposition to the 
bill.
    The Report of the Investigative Subcommittee clarified the 
standards of conduct applicable to Members and others within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee. Specifically, Members, 
employees, and officials of the House were advised that the 
linking of official actions with personal considerations in the 
manner described in the Investigative Subcommittee's Report was 
impermissible and violates House rules.
    The Report also contains procedural recommendations for 
future investigations undertaken by the Committee and for the 
conducting of House business. The procedural recommendations 
include a recommendation that House rules be amended so as to 
limit access to the House floor during House debate by Cabinet-
level officials, except for such officials that are former 
Members. See House Rule IV, Clause 2(a)(12) (permitting ``Heads 
of departments'' to ``the Hall of the House'').

Representative Tom DeLay

    A complaint was filed by Representative Chris Bell against 
Representative Tom DeLay on June 15, 2004. On June 22, 2004, 
the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee 
determined, under Committee Rule 16(a), that the complaint, 
which consisted of three counts, met the requirements of the 
Committee rules regarding complaints. After considering the 
allegations, information submitted by Representative DeLay, and 
information obtained as a result of fact-gathering by the 
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, on 
October 6, 2004, the Committee made determinations regarding 
disposition of the complaint against Representative DeLay.
    Count I: Count I of the Complaint alleged that 
Representative DeLay violated criminal law and House rules by 
soliciting and receiving campaign contributions from Westar 
Energy, Inc. ``in return for legislative assistance on the 
energy bill'' in 2002, and that his actions constituted the 
dispensing of impermissible special favors. In particular, the 
complaint referenced a $25,000 contribution that Westar made in 
May 2002 to Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (``TRMPAC''), 
an entity with which Representative DeLay was affiliated.
    The information obtained by the Committee indicated that 
neither Representative DeLay nor anyone acting on his behalf 
improperly solicited contributions from Westar, and that 
Representative DeLay took no action with regard to Westar that 
would constitute an impermissible special favor. Information 
obtained by the Committee indicated, however, that 
Representative DeLay's participation in and facilitation of an 
energy company fundraiser created the appearance that donors 
were being provided with improper special access to 
Representative DeLay regarding pending energy legislation.
    In accordance with Committee Rule 16(b)(1), the Committee 
determined to dispose of Count I by means of a letter of 
admonition to Representative DeLay. See Appendix III.
    Count II: Count II of the complaint alleged that 
Representative DeLay used TRMPAC to ``funnel'' corporate funds 
to Texas state campaigns in 2002 in violation of provisions of 
the Texas election code. The Committee determined to defer 
action on this count in accordance with Committee Rule 15(f) 
pending further action in Texas state court regarding 
indictments of several individuals in connection with TRMPAC, 
and pending the continuing investigation by the Travis County 
District Attorney of TRMPAC activities.
    Count III: Count III alleged that the contacts of 
Representative DeLay's staff with the Federal Aviation 
Administration and the Justice Department in May 2003 regarding 
absent Texas state legislators constituted an effort to use 
federal resources in a political matter and were therefore 
improper under Committee guidance regarding contacts with 
federal agencies by Members and their staff. The Committee 
determined that this count should be dismissed insofar as it 
concerned contacts with the Justice Department, and that 
insofar as it concerned contacts with the Federal Aviation 
Administration, it should be disposed of by means of a letter 
of admonition to Representative DeLay. See Appendix III; 
Committee Rule 16(b)(1).
    The letter of admonition to Representative DeLay was 
publicly released by the Committee on October 6, 2004, along 
with a memorandum from the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member 
of the Committee to the Committee setting out their 
recommendations to the Committee for disposition of the 
complaint.
    In further action related to this matter, the Committee 
determined on November 18, 2004, that the complaint filed by 
Representative Bell against Representative DeLay contained 
innuendo, speculative assertions, or conclusory statements in 
violation of Committee Rule 15(a)(4). This matter was resolved 
by the Committee by a letter transmitted to Representative Bell 
dated November 18, 2004. The letter was publicly released by 
the Committee on that same date. See Appendix IV.

Representative James McDermott

    A complaint was filed by Representative David L. Hobson 
against Representative James McDermott on November 16, 2004. On 
November 18, 2004, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of 
the Committee determined, under Committee Rule 16(a), that the 
complaint met the requirements of the Committee rules regarding 
complaints. Representative Hobson's complaint alleged that 
Representative McDermott violated certain laws, rules and 
standards of conduct in disclosing to the news media the 
contents of an intercepted telephone conversation in January 
1997.
    On December 22, 2004, the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member of the Committee determined, under Committee Rule 
16(b)(2), to establish an Investigative Subcommittee and to 
forward portions of the complaint to that subcommittee. 
Representative Judy Biggert was designated to serve as Chairman 
of the Investigative Subcommittee, and Representative Lucille 
Roybal-Allard was designated to serve as its Ranking Minority 
Member. The other two members designated to serve on the 
Investigative Subcommittee were Representative Phil English and 
Representative Robert C. Scott.

                      VI. Other Committee Actions

    In 2003, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
Committee commenced fact-gathering under Committee Rule 18(a) 
regarding news media reports that Representative Karen McCarthy 
had used campaign funds to pay for a trip to New York City in 
February 2003 during which she attended the Grammy Awards 
ceremony. This action was initiated because such use of 
campaign funds may have violated Clause 6 of House Rule 23, 
which provides that a Member may not convert campaign funds to 
personal use and must use those funds for ``bona fide campaign 
or political purposes.''
    Representative McCarthy failed to provide information 
requested by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
Committee that would establish that her trip had ``bona fide 
campaign or political purposes.'' The Chairman and Ranking 
Minority Member concluded in the middle of 2004, and advised 
Representative McCarthy, that she was required to repay the 
expenses of that trip to her campaign account using personal 
funds.
    On November 18, 2004, the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member of the Committee issued a public statement that 
described the conduct of Representative Karen McCarthy. The 
public statement noted that Representative McCarthy failed to 
make the required repayment. The statement also noted that 
disregard of Committee determinations by a Member would warrant 
the initiation of a formal disciplinary proceeding against the 
Member, but that such action would not be initiated regarding 
Representative McCarthy because (1) the Member will be 
departing the House at the end of this Congress and it would 
not be possible, as a practical matter, for a formal proceeding 
on this matter to be completed prior to the end of this 
Congress; and (2) the Federal Election Campaign Act includes a 
prohibition against conversion of campaign funds to personal 
use that is comparable to the provision of the House Rules, and 
thus it is possible that this matter will be remedied by action 
of the Federal Election Commission.
    In addition to the publicly disclosed matters involving 
Representatives Nick Smith and Karen McCarthy, the Chairman and 
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee either commenced or 
continued from the 107th Congress fact-gathering under 
Committee Rule 18(a) regarding the conduct of nine other 
Members. Of these matters, five were resolved during the 108th 
Congress without the empanelment of an investigative 
subcommittee or other formal action by the Committee, and the 
remaining matters are still pending.
                               APPENDIX I
?


                                  RULES

                         Committee on Standards
                           of Official Conduct




                         Adopted March 19, 2003

                             108th Congress

                      U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                          WASHINGTON, DC 20515
                                  RULES

                         Committee on Standards
                           of Official Conduct




                         Adopted March 19, 2003

                             108th Congress

                      U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                          WASHINGTON, DC 20515

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
             For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
 Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP Washington, DC 20402-9328
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

                 United States House of Representatives

                      One Hundred Eighth Congress

    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
    DOC HASTINGS, Washington
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
    KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio

    ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia,
      Ranking Minority Member
    STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
    GENE GREEN, Texas
    LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
    MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
                              ----------                              

    John E. Vargo, Chief Counsel/Staff Director

                                  (ii)









                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              

        RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
                    PART I--GENERAL COMMITTEE RULES

                                                                   Page
RULE 1. General Provisions.......................................     1
RULE 2. Definitions..............................................     2
RULE 3. Advisory Opinions and Waivers............................     3
RULE 4. Financial Disclosure.....................................     6
RULE 5. Meetings.................................................    11
RULE 6. Committee Staff..........................................    12
RULE 7. Confidentiality..........................................    14
RULE 8. Subcommittees--General Policy and Structure..............    16
RULE 9. Quorums and Member Disqualification......................    18
RULE 10. Vote Requirements.......................................    19
RULE 11. Committee Records.......................................    20
RULE 12. Broadcasts of Committee and Subcommittee Proceedings....    20

                    PART II--INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY

RULE 13. House Resolution........................................    21
RULE 14. Committee Authority to Investigate--General Policy......    22
RULE 15. Complaints..............................................    23
RULE 16. Duties of Committee Chairman and Ranking Minority Member    25
RULE 17. Processing of Complaints................................    27
RULE 18. Committee-Initiated Inquiry.............................    29
RULE 19. Investigative Subcommittee..............................    30
RULE 20. Amendments to Statements of Alleged Violation...........    35
RULE 21. Committee Reporting Requirements........................    35
RULE 22. Respondent's Answer.....................................    37
RULE 23. Adjudicatory Hearings...................................    39
RULE 24. Sanction Hearing and Consideration of Sanctions or Other 
  Recommendations................................................    46
RULE 25. Disclosure of Exculpatory Information to Respondent.....    49
RULE 26. Rights of Respondents and Witnesses.....................    50
RULE 27. Frivolous Filings.......................................    54
RULE 28. Referrals to Federal or State Authorities...............    55

                                 (III)
                                FOREWORD

    The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is unique in 
the House of Representatives. Consistent with the duty to carry 
out its advisory and enforcement responsibilities in an 
impartial manner, the Committee is the only standing committee 
of the House of Representatives the membership of which is 
divided evenly by party. These rules are intended to provide a 
fair procedural framework for the conduct of the Committee's 
activities and to help insure that the Committee serves well 
the people of the United States, the House of Representatives, 
and the Members, officers, and employees of the House of 
Representatives.

                    Part I--General Committee Rules


                       Rule 1. General Provisions

    (a) So far as applicable, these rules and the Rules of the 
House of Representatives shall be the rules of the Committee 
and any subcommittee. The Committee adopts these rules under 
the authority of clause 2(a)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, 108th Congress.
    (b) The rules of the Committee may be modified, amended, or 
repealed by a vote of a majority of the Committee.
    (c) When the interests of justice so require, the 
Committee, by a majority vote of its members, may adopt any 
special procedures, not inconsistent with these rules, deemed 
necessary to resolve a particular matter before it. Copies of 
such special procedures shall be furnished to all parties in 
the matter.
    (d) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member shall have 
access to such information that they request as necessary to 
conduct Committee business.

                          Rule 2. Definitions

    (a) ``Committee'' means the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.
    (b) ``Complaint'' means a written allegation of improper 
conduct against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
Representatives filed with the Committee with the intent to 
initiate an inquiry.
    (c) ``Inquiry'' means an investigation by an investigative 
subcommittee into allegations against a Member, officer, or 
employee of the House of Representatives.
    (d) ``Investigative Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee 
designated pursuant to Rule 19(a) to conduct an inquiry to 
determine if a Statement of Alleged Violation should be issued.
    (e) ``Statement of Alleged Violation'' means a formal 
charging document filed by an investigative subcommittee with 
the Committee containing specific allegations against a Member, 
officer, or employee of the House of Representatives of a 
violation of the Code of Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, 
regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the 
performance of official duties or the discharge of official 
responsibilities.
    (f) ``Adjudicatory Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee 
designated pursuant to Rule 23(a), that holds an adjudicatory 
hearing and determines whether the counts in a Statement of 
Alleged Violation are proved by clear and convincing evidence.
    (g) ``Sanction Hearing'' means a Committee hearing to 
determine what sanction, if any, to adopt or to recommend to 
the House of Representatives.
    (h) ``Respondent'' means a Member, officer, or employee of 
the House of Representatives who is the subject of a complaint 
filed with the Committee or who is the subject of an inquiry or 
a Statement of Alleged Violation.
    (i) ``Office of Advice and Education'' refers to the Office 
established by section 803(i) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. 
The Office handles inquiries; prepares written opinions in 
response to specific requests; develops general guidance; and 
organizes seminars, workshops, and briefings for the benefit of 
the House of Representatives.
    (j) ``Member'' means a Representative in, or a Delegate to, 
or the Resident Commissioner to, the U.S. House of 
Representatives.

                 Rule 3. Advisory Opinions and Waivers

    (a) The Office of Advice and Education shall handle 
inquiries; prepare written opinions providing specific advice; 
develop general guidance; and organize seminars, workshops, and 
briefings for the benefit of the House of Representatives.
    (b) Any Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
Representatives, may request a written opinion with respect to 
the propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such 
Member, officer, or employee.
    (c) The Office of Advice and Education may provide 
information and guidance regarding laws, rules, regulations, 
and other standards of conduct applicable to Members, officers, 
and employees in the performance of their duties or the 
discharge of their responsibilities.
    (d) In general, the Committee shall provide a written 
opinion to an individual only in response to a written request, 
and the written opinion shall address the conduct only of the 
inquiring individual, or of persons for whom the inquiring 
individual is responsible as employing authority.
    (e) A written request for an opinion shall be addressed to 
the Chairman of the Committee and shall include a complete and 
accurate statement of the relevant facts. A request shall be 
signed by the requester or the requester's authorized 
representative or employing authority. A representative shall 
disclose to the Committee the identity of the principal on 
whose behalf advice is being sought.
    (f) The Office of Advice and Education shall prepare for 
the Committee a response to each written request for an opinion 
from a Member, officer or employee. Each response shall discuss 
all applicable laws, rules, regulations, or other standards.
    (g) Where a request is unclear or incomplete, the Office of 
Advice and Education may seek additional information from the 
requester.
    (h) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member are authorized 
to take action on behalf of the Committee on any proposed 
written opinion that they determine does not require 
consideration by the Committee. If the Chairman or Ranking 
Minority Member requests a written opinion, or seeks a waiver, 
extension, or approval pursuant to Rules 3(l), 4(c), 4(e), or 
4(h), the next ranking member of the requester's party is 
authorized to act in lieu of the requester.
    (i) The Committee shall keep confidential any request for 
advice from a Member, officer, or employee, as well as any 
response thereto.
    (j) The Committee may take no adverse action in regard to 
any conduct that has been undertaken in reliance on a written 
opinion if the conduct conforms to the specific facts addressed 
in the opinion.
    (k) Information provided to the Committee by a Member, 
officer, or employee seeking advice regarding prospective 
conduct may notbe used as the basis for initiating an 
investigation under clause 3(a)(2) or clause 3(b) of Rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, if such Member, officer, or 
employee acts in good faith in accordance with the written advice of 
the Committee.
    (l) A written request for a waiver of clause 5 of House 
Rule XXV (the House gift rule), or for any other waiver or 
approval, shall be treated in all respects like any other 
request for a written opinion.
    (m) A written request for a waiver of clause 5 of House 
Rule XXV (the House gift rule) shall specify the nature of the 
waiver being sought and the specific circumstances justifying 
the waiver.
    (n) An employee seeking a waiver of time limits applicable 
to travel paid for by a private source shall include with the 
request evidence that the employing authority is aware of the 
request. In any other instance where proposed employee conduct 
may reflect on the performance of official duties, the 
Committee may require that the requester submit evidence that 
the employing authority knows of the conduct.

                      Rule 4. Financial Disclosure

    (a) In matters relating to Title I of the Ethics in 
Government Act of 1978, the Committee shall coordinate with the 
Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative Resource 
Center, to assure that appropriate individuals are notified of 
their obligation to file Financial Disclosure Statements and 
that such individuals are provided in a timely fashion with 
filing instructions and forms developed by the Committee.
    (b) The Committee shall coordinate with the Legislative 
Resource Center to assure that information that the Ethics in 
Government Act requires to be placed on the public record is 
made public.
    (c) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member are authorized 
to grant on behalf of the Committee requests for reasonable 
extensions of time for the filing of Financial Disclosure 
Statements. Any such request must be received by the Committee 
no later than the date on which the statement in question is 
due. A request received after such date may be granted by the 
Committee only in extraordinary circumstances. Such extensions 
for one individual in a calendar year shall not exceed a total 
of 90 days. No extension shall be granted authorizing a 
nonincumbent candidate to file a statement later than 30 days 
prior to a primary or general election in which the candidate 
is participating.
    (d) An individual who takes legally sufficient action to 
withdraw as a candidate before the date on which that 
individual's Financial Disclosure Statement is due under the 
Ethics in Government Act shall not be required to file a 
Statement. An individual shall not be excused from filing a 
Financial Disclosure Statement when withdrawal as a candidate 
occurs after the date on which such Statement was due.
    (e) Any individual who files a report required to be filed 
under title I of the Ethics in Government Act more than 30 days 
after the later of--
    (1) the date such report is required to be filed, or
    (2) if a filing extension is granted to such individual, 
the last day of the filing extension period, is required by 
such Act to pay a late filing fee of $200. The Chairman and 
Ranking Minority Member are authorized to approve requests that 
the fee be waived based on extraordinary circumstances.
    (f) Any late report that is submitted without a required 
filing fee shall be deemed procedurally deficient and not 
properly filed.
    (g) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member are authorized 
to approve requests for waivers of the aggregation and 
reporting of gifts as provided by section 102(a)(2)(C) of the 
Ethics in Government Act. If such a request is approved, both 
the incoming request and the Committee response shall be 
forwarded to the Legislative Resource Center for placement on 
the public record.
    (h) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member are authorized 
to approve blind trusts as qualifying under section 102(f)(3) 
of the Ethics in Government Act. The correspondence relating to 
formal approval of a blind trust, the trust document, the list 
of assets transferred to the trust, and any other documents 
required by law to be made public, shall be forwarded to the 
Legislative Resource Center for such purpose.
    (i) The Committee shall designate staff counsel who shall 
review Financial Disclosure Statements and, based upon 
information contained therein, indicate in a form and manner 
prescribed by the Committee whether the Statement appears 
substantially accurate and complete and the filer appears to be 
in compliance with applicable laws and rules.
    (j) Each Financial Disclosure Statement shall be reviewed 
within 60 days after the date of filing.
    (k) If the reviewing counsel believes that additional 
information is required because (1) the Statement appears not 
substantially accurate or complete, or (2) the filer may not be 
in compliance with applicable laws or rules, then the reporting 
individual shall be notified in writing of the additional 
information believed to be required, or of the law or rule with 
which the reporting individual does not appear to be in 
compliance. Such notice shall also state the time within which 
a response is to be submitted. Any such notice shall remain 
confidential.
    (l) Within the time specified, including any extension 
granted in accordance with clause (c), a reporting individual 
who concurs with the Committee's notification that the 
Statement is not complete, or that other action is required, 
shall submit the necessary information or take appropriate 
action. Any amendment may be in the form of a revised Financial 
Disclosure Statement or an explanatory letter addressed to the 
Clerk of the House of Representatives.
    (m) Any amendment shall be placed on the public record in 
the same manner as other Statements. The individual designated 
by the Committee to review the original Statement shall review 
any amendment thereto.
    (n) Within the time specified, including any extension 
granted in accordance with clause (c), a reporting individual 
who does not agree with the Committee that the Statement is 
deficient or that other action is required, shall be provided 
an opportunity to respond orally or in writing. If the 
explanation is accepted, a copy of the response, if written, or 
a note summarizing an oral response, shall be retained in 
Committee files with the original report.
    (o) The Committee shall be the final arbiter of whether any 
Statement requires clarification or amendment.
    (p) If the Committee determines, by vote of a majority of 
its members, that there is reason to believe that an individual 
has willfully failed to file a Statement or has willfully 
falsified or willfully failed to file information required to 
be reported, then the Committeeshall refer the name of the 
individual, together with the evidence supporting its finding, to the 
Attorney General pursuant to section 104(b) of the Ethics in Government 
Act. Such referral shall not preclude the Committee from initiating 
such other action as may be authorized by other provisions of law or 
the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                            Rule 5. Meetings

    (a) The regular meeting day of the Committee shall be the 
second Wednesday of each month, except when the House of 
Representatives is not meeting on that day. When the Committee 
Chairman determines that there is sufficient reason, a meeting 
may be called on additional days. A regularly scheduled meeting 
need not be held when the Chairman determines there is no 
business to be considered.
    (b) The Chairman shall establish the agenda for meetings of 
the Committee and the Ranking Minority Member may place 
additional items on the agenda.
    (c) All meetings of the Committee or any subcommittee shall 
occur in executive session unless the Committee or 
subcommittee, by an affirmative vote of a majority of its 
members, opens the meeting or hearing to the public.
    (d) Any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee or any 
sanction hearing held by the Committee shall be open to the 
public unless the Committee or subcommittee, by an affirmative 
vote of a majority of its members, closes the hearing to the 
public.
    (e) A subcommittee shall meet at the discretion of its 
Chairman.
    (f) Insofar as practicable, notice for any Committee or 
subcommittee meeting shall be provided at least seven days in 
advance of the meeting. The Chairman of the Committee or 
subcommittee may waive such time period for good cause.

                        Rule 6. Committee Staff

    (a) The staff is to be assembled and retained as a 
professional, nonpartisan staff.
    (b) Each member of the staff shall be professional and 
demonstrably qualified for the position for which he is hired.
    (c) The staff as a whole and each individual member of the 
staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan 
manner.
    (d) No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan 
political activity directly affecting any congressional or 
presidential election.
    (e) No member of the staff or outside counsel may accept 
public speaking engagements or write for publication on any 
subject that is in any way related to his or her employment or 
duties with the Committee without specific prior approval from 
the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member.
    (f) All staff members shall be appointed by an affirmative 
vote of a majority of the members of the Committee. Such vote 
shall occur at the first meeting of the membership of the 
Committee during each Congress and as necessary during the 
Congress.
    (g) Subject to the approval of the Committee on House 
Administration, the Committee may retain counsel not employed 
by the House of Representatives whenever the Committee 
determines, by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members 
of the Committee, that the retention of outside counsel is 
necessary and appropriate.
    (h) If the Committee determines that it is necessary to 
retain staff members for the purpose of a particular 
investigation or other proceeding, then such staff shall be 
retained only for the duration of that particular investigation 
or proceeding.
    (i) Outside counsel may be dismissed prior to the end of a 
contract between the Committee and such counsel only by a 
majority vote of the members of the Committee.
    (j) In addition to any other staff provided for by law, 
rule, or other authority, with respect to the Committee, the 
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member each may appoint one 
individual as a shared staff member from his or her personal 
staff to perform service for the Committee. Such shared staff 
may assist the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member on any 
subcommittee on which he serves. Only paragraphs (c), (e) of 
this Rule, and Rule 7(b) shall apply to shared staff.

                        Rule 7. Confidentiality

    (a) Before any Member or employee of the Committee, 
including members of an investigative subcommittee selected 
under clause 5(a)(4) of Rule X of the House of Representatives 
and shared staff designated pursuant to Committee Rule 6(j), 
may have access to information that is confidential under the 
rules of the Committee, the following oath (or affirmation) 
shall be executed in writing:
    ``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose, 
to any person or entity outside the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct, any information received in the course of my 
service with the Committee, except as authorized by the 
Committee or in accordance with its rules.''
    Copies of the executed oath shall be provided to the Clerk 
of the House as part of the records of the House. Breaches of 
confidentiality shall be investigated by the Committee and 
appropriate action shall be taken.
    (b) No member of the staff or outside counsel may make 
public, unless approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of 
the members of the Committee, any information, document, or 
other material that is confidential, derived from executive 
session, or classified and that is obtained during the course 
of employment with the Committee.
    (c) Committee members and staff shall not disclose any 
evidence relating to an investigation to any person or 
organization outside the Committee unless authorized by the 
Committee.
    (d) Members and staff of the Committee shall not disclose 
to any person or organization outside the Committee, unless 
authorized by the Committee, any information regarding the 
Committee's or a subcommittee's investigative, adjudicatory or 
other proceedings, included but not limited to: (i) the fact or 
nature of any complaints; (ii) executive session proceedings; 
(iii) information pertaining to or copies of any Committee or 
subcommittee report, study or other document which purports to 
express the views, findings, conclusions or recommendations of 
the Committee or subcommittee in connection with any of its 
activities or proceedings; or (iv) any other information or 
allegation respecting the conduct of a Member, officer or 
employee of the House.
    (e) Except as otherwise specifically authorized by the 
Committee, no Committee member or staff member shall disclose 
to any person outside the Committee, the name of any witness 
subpoenaed to testify or to produce evidence.
    (f) The Committee shall not disclose to any person or 
organization outside the Committee any information concerning 
the conduct of a respondent until it has transmitted a 
Statement of Alleged Violation to such respondent and the 
respondent has been given full opportunity to respond pursuant 
to Rule 22. The Statement of Alleged Violation and any written 
response thereto shall be made public at the first meeting or 
hearing on the matter that is open to the public after such 
opportunity has been provided. Any other materials in the 
possession of the Committee regarding such statement may be 
made public as authorized by the Committee to the extent 
consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives. If 
no public hearing or meeting is held on the matter, the 
Statement of Alleged Violation and any written response thereto 
shall be included in the Committee's final report on the matter 
to the House of Representatives.
    (g) Unless otherwise determined by a vote of the Committee, 
only the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, 
after consultation with each other, may make public statements 
regarding matters before the Committee or any subcommittee.
    (h) The Committee may establish procedures necessary to 
prevent the unauthorized disclosure of any testimony or other 
information received by the Committee or its staff.

          Rule 8. Subcommittees--General Policy and Structure

    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of these Rules, the 
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee may 
consult with an investigative subcommittee either on their own 
initiative or on the initiative of the subcommittee, shall have 
access to evidence and information before a subcommittee with 
whom they so consult, and shall not thereby be precluded from 
serving as full, voting members of any adjudicatory 
subcommittee. Except for the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member of the Committee pursuant to this paragraph, evidence in 
the possession of an investigative subcommittee shall not be 
disclosed to other Committee members except by a vote of the 
subcommittee.
    (b) The Committee may establish other noninvestigative and 
nonadjudicatory subcommittees and may assign to them such 
functions as it may deem appropriate. The membership of each 
subcommittee shall provide equal representation for the 
majority and minority parties.
    (c) The Chairman may refer any bill, resolution, or other 
matter before the Committee to an appropriate subcommittee for 
consideration. Any such bill, resolution, or other matter may 
be discharged from the subcommittee to which it was referred by 
a majority vote of the Committee.
    (d) Any member of the Committee may sit with any 
noninvestigative or nonadjudicatory subcommittee, but only 
regular members of such subcommittee may vote on any matter 
before that subcommittee.

              Rule 9. Quorums and Member Disqualification

    (a) The quorum for an investigative subcommittee to take 
testimony and to receive evidence shall be two members, unless 
otherwise authorized by the House of Representatives.
    (b) The quorum for an adjudicatory subcommittee to take 
testimony, receive evidence, or conduct business shall consist 
of a majority plus one of the members of the adjudicatory 
subcommittee.
    (c) Except as stated in clauses (a) and (b) of this rule, a 
quorum for the purpose of conducting business consists of a 
majority of the members of the Committee or subcommittee.
    (d) A member of the Committee shall be ineligible to 
participate in any Committee or subcommittee proceeding in 
which he is the respondent.
    (e) A member of the Committee may disqualify himself from 
participating in any investigation of the conduct of a Member, 
officer, or employee of the House of Representatives upon the 
submission in writing and under oath of an affidavit of 
disqualification stating that the member cannot render an 
impartial and unbiased decision. If the Committee approves and 
accepts such affidavit of disqualification, or if a member is 
disqualified pursuant to Rule 17(e) or Rule 23(a), the Chairman 
shall so notify the Speaker and ask the Speaker to designate a 
Member of the House of Representatives from the same political 
party as the disqualified member of the Committee to act as a 
member of the Committee in any Committee proceeding relating to 
such investigation.

                       Rule 10. Vote Requirements

    (a) The following actions shall be taken only upon an 
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee 
or subcommittee, as appropriate:
    (1) Issuing a subpoena.
    (2) Adopting a full Committee motion to create an 
investigative subcommittee.
    (3) Adoption or amendment of a Statement of Alleged 
Violation.
    (4) Finding that a count in a Statement of Alleged 
Violation has been proved by clear and convincing evidence.
    (5) Sending a letter of reproval.
    (6) Adoption of a recommendation to the House of 
Representatives that a sanction be imposed.
    (7) Adoption of a report relating to the conduct of a 
Member, officer, or employee.
    (8) Issuance of an advisory opinion of general 
applicability establishing new policy.
    (b) Except as stated in clause (a), action may be taken by 
the Committee or anysubcommittee thereof by a simple majority, 
a quorum being present.
    (c) No motion made to take any of the actions enumerated in 
clause (a) of this Rule may be entertained by the Chair unless 
a quorum of the Committee is present when such motion is made.

                       Rule 11. Committee Records

    (a) All communications and all pleadings pursuant to these 
rules shall be filed with the Committee at the Committee's 
office or such other place as designated by the Committee.
    (b) All records of the Committee which have been delivered 
to the Archivist of the United States shall be made available 
to the public in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives.

     Rule 12. Broadcasts of Committee and Subcommittee Proceedings

    (a) Television or radio coverage of a Committee or 
subcommittee hearing or meeting shall be without commercial 
sponsorship.
    (b) No witness shall be required against his or her will to 
be photographed or otherwise to have a graphic reproduction of 
his or her image made at any hearing or to give evidence or 
testimony while the broadcasting of that hearing, by radio or 
television, is being conducted. At the request of any witness, 
all media microphones shall be turned off, all television and 
camera lenses shall be covered, and the making of a graphic 
reproduction at the hearing shall not be permitted. This 
paragraph supplements clause 2(k)(5) of Rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives relating to the protection of the 
rights of witnesses.
    (c) Not more than four television cameras, operating from 
fixed positions, shall be permitted in a hearing or meeting 
room. The Committee may allocate the positions of permitted 
television cameras among the television media in consultation 
with the Executive Committee of the Radio and Television 
Correspondents' Galleries.
    (d) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to 
obstruct in any way the space between any witness giving 
evidence or testimony and any member of the Committee, or the 
visibility of that witness and that member to each other.
    (e) Television cameras shall not be placed in positions 
that unnecessarily obstruct the coverage of the hearing or 
meeting by the other media.

                    PART II--INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY


                       Rule 13. House Resolution

    Whenever the House of Representatives, by resolution, 
authorizes or directs the Committee to undertake an inquiry or 
investigation, the provisions of the resolution, in conjunction 
with these Rules, shall govern. To the extent the provisions of 
the resolution differ from these Rules, the resolution shall 
control.

      Rule 14. Committee Authority to Investigate--General Policy

    (a) Pursuant to clause 3(b) of Rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee may exercise its 
investigative authority when:
    (1) information offered as a complaint by a Member of the 
House of Representatives is transmitted directly to the 
Committee;
    (2) information offered as a complaint by an individual not 
a Member of the House is transmitted to the Committee, provided 
that a Member of the House certifies in writing that he or she 
believes the information is submitted in good faith and 
warrants the review and consideration of the Committee;
    (3) the Committee, on its own initiative, establishes an 
investigative subcommittee;
    (4) a Member, officer, or employee is convicted in a 
Federal, State, or local courts of a felony; or
    (5) the House of Representatives, by resolution, authorizes 
or directs the Committee to undertake an inquiry or 
investigation.
    (b) The Committee also has investigatory authority over:
    (1) certain unauthorized disclosures of intelligence-
related information, pursuant to House Rule X, clauses 11(g)(4) 
and (g)(5); or
    (2) reports received from the Office of the Inspector 
General pursuant to House Rule II, clause 6(c)(5).

                          Rule 15. Complaints

    (a) A complaint submitted to the Committee shall be in 
writing, dated, and properly verified (a document will be 
considered properly verified where a notary executes it with 
the language, ``Signed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on 
(date) by (the name of the person)'' setting forth in simple, 
concise, and direct statements--
    (1) the name and legal address of the party filing the 
complaint (hereinafter referred to as the ``complainant'');
    (2) the name and position or title of the respondent;
    (3) the nature of the alleged violation of the Code of 
Official Conduct or of other law, rule, regulation, or other 
standard of conduct applicable to the performance of duties or 
discharge of responsibilities; and
    (4) the facts alleged to give rise to the violation. The 
complaint shall not contain innuendo, speculative assertions, 
or conclusory statements.
    (b) Any documents in the possession of the complainant that 
relate to the allegations may be submitted with the complaint.
    (c) Information offered as a complaint by a Member of the 
House of Representatives may be transmitted directly to the 
Committee.
    (d) Information offered as a complaint by an individual not 
a Member of the House may be transmitted to the Committee, 
provided that a Member of the House certifies in writing that 
he or she believes the information is submitted in good faith 
and warrants the review and consideration of the Committee.
    (e) A complaint must be accompanied by a certification, 
which may be unsworn, that the complainant has provided an 
exact copy of the filed complaint and all attachments to the 
respondent.
    (f) The Committee may defer action on a complaint against a 
Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives 
when the complaint alleges conduct that the Committee has 
reason to believe is being reviewed by appropriate law 
enforcement or regulatory authorities, or when the Committee 
determines that it is appropriate for the conduct alleged in 
the complaint to be reviewed initially by law enforcement or 
regulatory authorities.
    (g) A complaint may not be amended without leave of the 
Committee. Otherwise, any new allegations of improper conduct 
must be submitted in a new complaint that independently meets 
the procedural requirements of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee's Rules.
    (h) The Committee shall not accept, and shall return to the 
complainant, any complaint submitted within the 60 days prior 
to an election in which the subject of the complaint is a 
candidate.
    (i) The Committee shall not consider a complaint, nor shall 
any investigation be undertaken by the Committee, of any 
alleged violation which occurred before the third previous 
Congress unless the Committee determines that the alleged 
violation is directly related to an alleged violation which 
occurred in a more recent Congress.

   Rule 16. Duties of Committee Chairman and Ranking Minority Member

    (a) Whenever information offered as a complaint is 
submitted to the Committee, the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member shall have 14 calendar days or 5 legislative days, 
whichever occurs first, to determine whether the information 
meets the requirements of the Committee's rules for what 
constitutes a complaint.
    (b) Whenever the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member 
jointly determine that information submitted to the Committee 
meets the requirements of the Committee's rules for what 
constitutes a complaint, they shall have 45 calendar days or 5 
legislative days, whichever is later, after the date that the 
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member determine that information 
filed meets the requirements of the Committee's rules for what 
constitutes a complaint, unless the Committee by an affirmative 
vote of a majority of its members votes otherwise, to--
    (1) recommend to the Committee that it dispose of the 
complaint, or any portion thereof, in any manner that does not 
require action by the House, which may include dismissal of the 
complaint or resolution of the complaint by a letter to the 
Member, officer, or employee of the House against whom the 
complaint is made;
    (2) establish an investigative subcommittee; or
    (3) request that the Committee extend the applicable 45-
calendar-day period when they determine more time is necessary 
in order to make a recommendation under paragraph (1) or (2) of 
Rule 16(b).
    (c) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member may jointly 
gather additional information concerning alleged conduct which 
is the basis of a complaint or of information offered as a 
complaint until they have established an investigative 
subcommittee or the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member has 
placed on the agenda the issue of whether to establish an 
investigative subcommittee.
    (d) If the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member jointly 
determine that information submitted to the Committee meets the 
requirements of the Committee rules for what constitutes a 
complaint, and the complaint is not disposed of within 45 
calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever is later, and no 
additional 45-day extension is made, then they shall establish 
an investigative subcommittee and forward the complaint, or any 
portion thereof, to that subcommittee for its consideration. If 
at any time during the time period either the Chairman or 
Ranking Minority Member places on the agenda the issue of 
whether to establish an investigative subcommittee, then an 
investigative subcommittee may be established only by an 
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee.
    (e) Whenever the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member 
jointly determine that information submitted to the Committee 
does not meet the requirements for what constitutes a complaint 
set forth in the Committee rules, they may (1) return the 
information to the complainant with a statement that it fails 
to meet the requirements for what constitutes a complaint set 
forth in the Committee's rules; or (2) recommend to the 
Committee that it authorize the establishment of an 
investigative subcommittee.

                   Rule 17. Processing of Complaints

    (a) If a complaint is in compliance with House and 
Committee Rules, a copy of the complaint and the Committee 
Rules shall be forwarded to the respondent within five days 
with notice that the complaint conforms to the applicable 
rules.
    (b) The respondent may, within 30 days of the Committee's 
notification, provide to the Committee any information relevant 
to a complaint filed with the Committee. The respondent may 
submit a written statement in response to the complaint. Such a 
statement shall be signed by the respondent. If the statement 
is prepared by counsel for the respondent, the respondent shall 
sign a representation that he/she has reviewed the response and 
agrees with the factual assertions contained therein.
    (c) The Committee staff may request information from the 
respondent or obtain additional information pertinent to the 
case from other sources prior to the establishment of an 
investigative subcommittee only when so directed by the 
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member.
    (d) The respondent shall be notified in writing regarding 
the Committee's decision either to dismiss the complaint or to 
create an investigative subcommittee.
    (e) The respondent shall be notified of the membership of 
the investigative subcommittee and shall have ten days after 
such notice is transmitted to object to the participation of 
any subcommittee member. Such objection shall be in writing and 
shall be on the grounds that the subcommittee membercannot 
render an impartial and unbiased decision. The subcommittee member 
against whom the objection is made shall be the sole judge of his or 
her disqualification.

                  Rule 18. Committee-Initiated Inquiry

    (a) Notwithstanding the absence of a filed complaint, the 
Committee may consider any information in its possession 
indicating that a Member, officer, or employee may have 
committed a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any 
law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable 
to the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the 
performance of his or her duties or the discharge of his or her 
responsibilities. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member may 
jointly gather additional information concerning such an 
alleged violation by a Member, officer, or employee unless and 
until an investigative subcommittee has been established.
    (b) If the Committee votes to establish an investigative 
subcommittee, the Committee shall proceed in accordance with 
Rule 19.
    (c) Any written request by a Member, officer, or employee 
of the House of Representatives that the Committee conduct an 
inquiry into such person's own conduct shall be processed in 
accordance with subsection (a) of this Rule.
    (d) An inquiry shall not be undertaken regarding any 
alleged violation that occurred before the third previous 
Congress unless a majority of the Committee determines that the 
alleged violation is directly related to an alleged violation 
that occurred in a more recent Congress.
    (e) An inquiry shall be undertaken by an investigative 
subcommittee with regard to any felony conviction of a Member, 
officer, or employee of the House of Representatives in a 
Federal, State, or local court who has been sentenced. 
Notwithstanding this provision, the Committee has the 
discretion to initiate an inquiry upon an affirmative vote of a 
majority of the members of the Committee at any time prior to 
conviction or sentencing.

                  Rule 19. Investigative Subcommittee

    (a) Upon the establishment of an investigative 
subcommittee, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
Committee shall designate four members (with equal 
representation from the majority and minority parties) to serve 
as an investigative subcommittee to undertake an inquiry. 
Members of the Committee and Members of the House selected 
pursuant to clause 5(a)(4)(A) of Rule X of the House of 
Representatives, are eligible for appointment to an 
investigative subcommittee, as determined by the Chairman and 
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. At the time of 
appointment, the Chairman shall designate one member of the 
subcommittee to serve as the chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member shall designate one member of the subcommittee to serve 
as the ranking minority member of the investigative 
subcommittee. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
Committee may serve as members of an investigative 
subcommittee, but may not serve as non-voting, ex-officio 
members.
    (b) In an inquiry undertaken by an investigative 
subcommittee--
    (1) All proceedings, including the taking of testimony, 
shall be conducted in executive session and all testimony taken 
by deposition or things produced pursuant to subpoena or 
otherwise shall be deemed to have been taken or produced in 
executive session.
    (2) The Chairman of the investigative subcommittee shall 
ask the respondent and all witnesses whether they intend to be 
represented by counsel. If so, the respondent or witnesses or 
their legal representatives shall provide written designation 
of counsel. A respondent or witness who is represented by 
counsel shall not be questioned in the absence of counsel 
unless an explicit waiver is obtained.
    (3) The subcommittee shall provide the respondent an 
opportunity to present, orally or in writing, a statement, 
which must be under oath or affirmation, regarding the 
allegations and any other relevant questions arising out of the 
inquiry.
    (4) The staff may interview witnesses, examine documents 
and other evidence, and request that submitted statements be 
under oath or affirmation and that documents be certified as to 
their authenticity and accuracy.
    (5) The subcommittee, by a majority vote of its members, 
may require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
testimony of witnesses and the production of such books, 
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and 
other items as it deems necessary to the conduct of the 
inquiry. Unless the Committee otherwise provides, the subpoena 
power shall rest in the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of 
the Committee and a subpoena shall be issued upon the request 
of the investigative subcommittee.
    (6) The subcommittee shall require that testimony be given 
under oath or affirmation. The form of the oath or affirmation 
shall be: ``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the 
testimony you will give before this subcommittee in the matter 
now under consideration will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth (so help you God)?'' The oath or 
affirmation shall be administered by the Chairman or 
subcommittee member designated by the Chairman to administer 
oaths.
    (c) During the inquiry, the procedure respecting the 
admissibility of evidence and rulings shall be as follows:
    (1) Any relevant evidence shall be admissible unless the 
evidence is privileged under the precedents of the House of 
Representatives.
    (2) The Chairman of the subcommittee or other presiding 
member at any investigative subcommittee proceeding shall rule 
upon any question of admissibility or pertinency of evidence, 
motion, procedure or any other matter, and may direct any 
witness to answer any question under penalty of contempt. A 
witness, witness' counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may 
appeal any rulings to the members present at that proceeding. 
The majority vote of the members present at such proceeding on 
such appeal shall govern the question of admissibility, and no 
appeal shall lie to the Committee.
    (3) Whenever a person is determined by a majority vote to 
be in contempt of the subcommittee, the matter may be referred 
to the Committee to determine whether to refer the matter to 
the House of Representatives for consideration.
    (4) Committee counsel may, subject to subcommittee 
approval, enter into stipulations with the respondent and/or 
the respondent's counsel as to facts that are not in dispute.
    (d) Upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the 
subcommittee members, and an affirmative vote of a majority of 
the full Committee, an investigative subcommittee may expand 
the scope of its investigation.
    (e) Upon completion of the investigation, the staff shall 
draft for the investigative subcommittee a report that shall 
contain a comprehensive summary of the information received 
regarding the alleged violations.
    (f) Upon completion of the inquiry, an investigative 
subcommittee, by a majority vote of its members, may adopt a 
Statement of Alleged Violation if it determines that there is 
substantial reason to believe that a violation of the Code of 
Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation, or other 
standard of conduct applicable to the performance of official 
duties or the discharge of official responsibilities by a 
Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives 
has occurred. If more than one violation is alleged, such 
Statement shall be divided into separate counts. Each count 
shall relate to a separate violation, shall contain a plain and 
concise statement of the alleged facts of such violation, and 
shall include a reference to the provision of the Code of 
Official Conduct or law, rule, regulation or other applicable 
standard of conduct governing the performance of duties or 
discharge of responsibilities alleged to have been violated. A 
copy of such Statement shall be transmitted to the respondent 
and the respondent's counsel.
    (g) If the investigative subcommittee does not adopt a 
Statement of Alleged Violation, it shall transmit to the 
Committee a report containing a summary of the information 
received in the inquiry, its conclusions and reasons therefor, 
and any appropriate recommendation.

         Rule 20. Amendments to Statements of Alleged Violation

    (a) An investigative subcommittee may, upon an affirmative 
vote of a majority of its members, amend its Statement of 
Alleged Violation anytime before the Statement of Alleged 
Violation is transmitted to the Committee; and
    (b) If an investigative subcommittee amends its Statement 
of Alleged Violation, the respondent shall be notified in 
writing and shall have 30 calendar days from the date of that 
notification to file an answer to the amended Statement of 
Alleged Violation.

               Rule 21. Committee Reporting Requirements

    (a) Whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a 
Statement of Alleged Violation and transmits a report to that 
effect to the Committee, the Committee may by an affirmative 
vote of a majority of its members transmit such report to the 
House of Representatives;
    (b) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a 
Statement of Alleged Violation but recommends that no further 
action be taken, it shall transmit a report to the Committee 
regarding the Statement of Alleged Violation; and
    (c) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a 
Statement of Alleged Violation, the respondent admits to the 
violations set forth in such Statement, the respondent waives 
his or her right to an adjudicatory hearing, and the 
respondent's waiver is approved by the Committee--
    (1) the subcommittee shall prepare a report for transmittal 
to the Committee, a final draft of which shall be provided to 
the respondent not less than 15 calendar days before the 
subcommittee votes on whether to adopt the report;
    (2) the respondent may submit views in writing regarding 
the final draft to the subcommittee within 7 calendar days of 
receipt of that draft;
    (3) the subcommittee shall transmit a report to the 
Committee regarding the Statement of Alleged Violation together 
with any views submitted by the respondent pursuant to 
subparagraph (2), and the Committee shall make the report, 
together with the respondent's views, available to the public 
before the commencement of any sanction hearing; and
    (4) the Committee shall by an affirmative vote of a 
majority of its members issue a report and transmit such report 
to the House of Representatives, together with the respondent's 
views previously submitted pursuant to subparagraph (2) and any 
additional views respondent may submit for attachment to the 
final report; and
    (d) Members of the Committee shall have not less than 72 
hours to review any report transmitted to the Committee by an 
investigative subcommittee before both the commencement of a 
sanction hearing and the Committee vote on whether to adopt the 
report.

                      Rule 22. Respondent's Answer

    (a)(1) Within 30 days from the date of transmittal of a 
Statement of Alleged Violation, the respondent shall file with 
the investigative subcommittee an answer, in writing and under 
oath, signed by respondent and respondent's counsel. Failure to 
file an answer within the time prescribed shall be considered 
by the Committee as a denial of each count.
    (2) The answer shall contain an admission to or denial of 
each count set forth in the Statement of Alleged Violation and 
may include negative, affirmative, or alternative defenses and 
any supporting evidence or other relevant information.
    (b) The respondent may file a Motion for a Bill of 
Particulars within 10 days of the date of transmittal of the 
Statement of Alleged Violation. If a Motion for a Bill of 
Particulars is filed, the respondent shall not be required to 
file an answer until 20 days after the subcommittee has replied 
to such motion.
    (c)(1) The respondent may file a Motion to Dismiss within 
10 days of the date of transmittal of the Statement of Alleged 
Violation or, if a Motion for a Bill of Particulars has been 
filed, within 10 days of the date of the subcommittee's reply 
to the Motion for a Bill of Particulars. If a Motion to Dismiss 
is filed, the respondent shall not be required to file an 
answer until 20 days after the subcommittee has replied to the 
Motion to Dismiss, unless the respondent previously filed a 
Motion for a Bill of Particulars, in which case the respondent 
shall not be required to file an answer until 10 days after the 
subcommittee has replied to the Motion to Dismiss. The 
investigative subcommittee shall rule upon any motion to 
dismiss filed during the period between the establishment of 
the subcommittee and the subcommittee's transmittal of a report 
or Statement of Alleged Violation to the Committee or to the 
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member at the conclusion of an 
inquiry, and no appeal of the subcommittee's ruling shall lie 
to the Committee.
    (2) A Motion to Dismiss may be made on the grounds that the 
Statement of Alleged Violation fails to state facts that 
constitute a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or other 
applicable law, rule, regulation, or standard of conduct, or on 
the grounds that the Committee lacks jurisdiction to consider 
the allegations contained in the Statement.
    (d) Any motion filed with the subcommittee pursuant to this 
rule shall be accompanied by a Memorandum of Points and 
Authorities.
    (e)(1) The Chairman of the investigative subcommittee, for 
good cause shown, may permit the respondent to file an answer 
or motion after the day prescribed above.
    (2) If the ability of the respondent to present an adequate 
defense is not adversely affected and special circumstances so 
require, the Chairman of the investigative subcommittee may 
direct the respondent to file an answer or motion prior to the 
day prescribed above.
    (f) If the day on which any answer, motion, reply, or other 
pleading must be filed falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, 
such filing shall be made on the first business day thereafter.
    (g) As soon as practicable after an answer has been filed 
or the time for such filing has expired, the Statement of 
Alleged Violation and any answer, motion, reply, or other 
pleading connected therewith shall be transmitted by the 
Chairman of the investigative subcommittee to the Chairman and 
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee.

                     Rule 23. Adjudicatory Hearings

    (a) If a Statement of Alleged Violation is transmitted to 
the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member pursuant to Rule 22, 
and no waiver pursuant to Rule 26(b) has occurred, the Chairman 
shall designate the members of the Committee who did not serve 
on the investigative subcommittee to serve on an adjudicatory 
subcommittee. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
Committee shall be the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of 
the adjudicatory subcommittee unless they served on the 
investigative subcommittee. The respondent shall be notified of 
the designation of the adjudicatory subcommittee and shall have 
ten days after such notice is transmitted to object to the 
participation of any subcommittee member. Such objection shall 
be in writing and shall be on the grounds that the member 
cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision. The member 
against whom the objection is made shall be the sole judge of 
his or her disqualification.
    (b) A majority of the adjudicatory subcommittee membership 
plus one must be present at all times for the conduct of any 
business pursuant to this rule.
    (c) The adjudicatory subcommittee shall hold a hearing to 
determine whether any counts in the Statement of Alleged 
Violation have been proved by clear and convincing evidence and 
shall make findings of fact, except where such violations have 
been admitted by respondent.
    (d) At an adjudicatory hearing, the subcommittee may 
require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony 
of such witnesses and production of such books, records, 
correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and other items 
as it deems necessary. Depositions, interrogatories, and sworn 
statements taken under any investigative subcommittee direction 
may be accepted into the hearing record.
    (e) The procedures set forth in clause 2(g) and (k) of Rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to 
adjudicatory hearings. All such hearings shall be open to the 
public unless the adjudicatory subcommittee, pursuant to such 
clause, determines that the hearings or any part thereof should 
be closed.
    (f)(1) The adjudicatory subcommittee shall, in writing, 
notify the respondent that the respondent and his or her 
counsel have the right to inspect, review, copy, or photograph 
books, papers, documents, photographs, or other tangible 
objects that the adjudicatory subcommittee counsel intends to 
use as evidence against the respondent in an adjudicatory 
hearing. The respondent shall be given access to such evidence, 
and shall be provided the names of witnesses the subcommittee 
counsel intends to call, and a summary of their expected 
testimony, no less than 15 calendar days prior to any such 
hearing. Except in extraordinary circumstances, no evidence may 
be introduced or witness called in an adjudicatory hearing 
unless the respondent has been afforded a prior opportunity to 
review such evidence or has been provided the name of the 
witness.
    (2) After a witness has testified on direct examination at 
an adjudicatory hearing, the Committee, at the request of the 
respondent, shall make available to the respondent any 
statement of the witness in the possession of the Committee 
which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has 
testified.
    (3) Any other testimony, statement, or documentary evidence 
in the possession of the Committee which is material to the 
respondent's defense shall, upon request, be made available to 
the respondent.
    (g) No less than five days prior to the hearing, the 
respondent or counsel shall provide the adjudicatory 
subcommittee with the names of witnesses expected to be called, 
summaries of their expected testimony, and copies of any 
documents or other evidence proposed to be introduced.
    (h) The respondent or counsel may apply to the subcommittee 
for the issuance of subpoenas for the appearance of witnesses 
or the production of evidence. The application shall be granted 
upon a showing by the respondent that the proposed testimony or 
evidence is relevant and not otherwise available to respondent. 
The application may be denied if not made at a reasonable time 
or if the testimony or evidence would be merely cumulative.
    (i) During the hearing, the procedures regarding the 
admissibility of evidence and rulings shall be as follows:
    (1) Any relevant evidence shall be admissible unless the 
evidence is privileged under the precedents of the House of 
Representatives.
    (2) The Chairman of the subcommittee or other presiding 
member at an adjudicatory subcommittee hearing shall rule upon 
any question of admissibility or pertinency of evidence, 
motion, procedure, or any other matter, and may direct any 
witness to answer any question under penalty of contempt. A 
witness, witness's counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may 
appeal any ruling to the members present at that proceeding. 
The majority vote of the members present at such proceeding on 
such an appeal shall govern the question of admissibility and 
no appeal shall lie to the Committee.
    (3) Whenever a witness is deemed by a Chairman or other 
presiding member to be in contempt of the subcommittee, the 
matter may be referred to the Committee to determine whether to 
refer the matter to the House of Representatives for 
consideration.
    (4) Committee counsel may, subject to subcommittee 
approval, enter into stipulations with the respondent and/or 
the respondent's counsel as to facts that are not in dispute.
    (j) Unless otherwise provided, the order of an adjudicatory 
hearing shall be as follows:
    (1) The Chairman of the subcommittee shall open the hearing 
by stating the adjudicatory subcommittee's authority to conduct 
the hearing and the purpose of the hearing.
    (2) The Chairman shall then recognize Committee counsel and 
the respondent's counsel, in turn, for the purpose of giving 
opening statements.
    (3) Testimony from witnesses and other pertinent evidence 
shall be received in the following order whenever possible:
    (i) witnesses (deposition transcripts and affidavits 
obtained during the inquiry may be used in lieu of live 
witnesses if the witness is unavailable) and other evidence 
offered by the Committee counsel,
    (ii) witnesses and other evidence offered by the 
respondent,
    (iii) rebuttal witnesses, as permitted by the Chairman.
    (4) Witnesses at a hearing shall be examined first by 
counsel calling such witness. The opposing counsel may then 
cross-examine the witness. Redirect examination and recross 
examination by counsel may be permitted at the Chairman's 
discretion. Subcommittee members may then question witnesses. 
Unless otherwise directed by the Chairman, questions by 
Subcommittee members shall be conducted under the five-minute 
rule.
    (5) The Chairman shall then recognize Committee counsel and 
respondent's counsel, in turn, for the purpose of giving 
closing arguments. Committee counsel may reserve time for 
rebuttal argument, as permitted by the Chairman.
    (k) A subpoena to a witness to appear at a hearing shall be 
served sufficiently in advance of that witness' scheduled 
appearance to allow the witness a reasonable period of time, as 
determined by the Chairman of the adjudicatory subcommittee, to 
prepare for the hearing and to employ counsel.
    (l) Each witness appearing before the subcommittee shall be 
furnished a printed copy of the Committee rules, the pertinent 
provisions of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
applicable to the rights of witnesses, and a copy of the 
Statement of Alleged Violation.
    (m) Testimony of all witnesses shall be taken under oath or 
affirmation. The form of the oath or affirmation shall be: ``Do 
you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you will give 
before this subcommittee in the matter now under consideration 
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth 
(so help you God)?'' The oath or affirmation shall be 
administered by the Chairman or Committee member designated by 
the Chairman to administer oaths.
    (n) At an adjudicatory hearing, the burden of proof rests 
on Committee counsel to establish the facts alleged in the 
Statement of Alleged Violation by clear and convincing 
evidence. However, Committee counsel need not present any 
evidence regarding any count that is admitted by the respondent 
or any fact stipulated.
    (o) As soon as practicable after all testimony and evidence 
have been presented, the subcommittee shall consider each count 
contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation and shall 
determine by a majority vote of its members whether each count 
has been proved. If a majority of the subcommittee does not 
vote that a count has been proved, a motion to reconsider that 
vote may be made only by a member who voted that the count was 
not proved. A count that is not proved shall be considered as 
dismissed by the subcommittee.
    (p) The findings of the adjudicatory subcommittee shall be 
reported to the Committee.

   Rule 24. Sanction Hearing and Consideration of Sanctions or Other 
                            Recommendations

    (a) If no count in a Statement of Alleged Violation is 
proved, the Committee shall prepare a report to the House of 
Representatives, based upon the report of the adjudicatory 
subcommittee.
    (b) If an adjudicatory subcommittee completes an 
adjudicatory hearing pursuant to Rule 23 and reports that any 
count of the Statement of Alleged Violation has been proved, a 
hearing before the Committee shall be held to receive oral and/
or written submissions by counsel for the Committee and counsel 
for the respondent as to the sanction the Committee should 
recommend to the House of Representatives with respect to such 
violations. Testimony by witnesses shall not be heard except by 
written request and vote of a majority of the Committee.
    (c) Upon completion of any proceeding held pursuant to 
clause (b), the Committee shall consider and vote on a motion 
to recommend to the House of Representatives that the House 
take disciplinary action. If a majority of the Committee does 
not vote in favor of the recommendation that the House of 
Representatives take action, a motion to reconsider that vote 
may be made only by a member who voted against the 
recommendation. The Committee may also, by majority vote, adopt 
a motion to issue a Letter of Reproval or take other 
appropriate Committee action.
    (d) If the Committee determines a Letter of Reproval 
constitutes sufficient action, the Committee shall include any 
such letter as a part of its report to the House of 
Representatives.
    (e) With respect to any proved counts against a Member of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee may recommend to 
the House one or more of the following sanctions:
    (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 if under the Constitution the House of 
Representatives may impose such denial or limitation.
    (6) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to be 
appropriate.
    (f) With respect to any proved counts against an officer or 
employee of the House of Representatives, the Committee may 
recommend to the House one or more of the following sanctions:
    (1) Dismissal from employment.
    (2) Reprimand.
    (3) Fine.
    (4) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to be 
appropriate.
    (g) With respect to the sanctions that the Committee may 
recommend, reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, 
censure is appropriate for more serious violations, and 
expulsion of a Member or dismissal of an officer or employee is 
appropriate for the most serious violations. A recommendation 
of a fine is appropriate in a case in which it is likely that 
the violation was committed to secure a personal financial 
benefit; and a recommendation of a denial or limitation of a 
right, power, privilege, or immunity of a Member is appropriate 
when the violation bears upon the exercise or holding of such 
right, power, privilege, or immunity. This clause sets forth 
general guidelines and does not limit the authority of the 
Committee to recommend other sanctions.
    (h) The Committee report shall contain an appropriate 
statement of the evidence supporting the Committee's findings 
and a statement of the Committee's reasons for the recommended 
sanction.

      Rule 25. Disclosure of Exculpatory Information to Respondent

    If the Committee, or any investigative or adjudicatory 
subcommittee at any time receives any exculpatory information 
respecting a Complaint or Statement of Alleged Violation 
concerning a Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
Representatives, it shall make such information known and 
available to the Member, officer, or employee as soon as 
practicable, but in no event later than the transmittal of 
evidence supporting a proposed Statement of Alleged Violation 
pursuant to Rule 26(c). If an investigative subcommittee does 
not adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation, it shall identify 
any exculpatory information in its possession at the conclusion 
of its inquiry and shall include such information, if any, in 
the subcommittee's final report to the Committee regarding its 
inquiry. For purposes of this rule, exculpatory evidence shall 
be any evidence or information that is substantially favorable 
to the respondent with respect to the allegations or charges 
before an investigative or adjudicatory subcommittee.

              Rule 26. Rights of Respondents and Witnesses

    (a) A respondent shall be informed of the right to be 
represented by counsel, to be provided at his or her own 
expense.
    (b) A respondent may seek to waive any procedural rights or 
steps in the disciplinary process. A request for waiver must be 
in writing, signed by the respondent, and must detail what 
procedural steps the respondent seeks to waive. Any such 
request shall be subject to the acceptance of the Committee or 
subcommittee, as appropriate.
    (c) Not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote 
by an investigative subcommittee on a Statement of Alleged 
Violation, the subcommittee shall provide the respondent with a 
copy of the Statement of Alleged Violation it intends to adopt 
together with all evidence it intends to use to prove those 
charges which it intends to adopt, including documentary 
evidence, witness testimony, memoranda of witness interviews, 
and physical evidence, unless the subcommittee by an 
affirmative vote of a majority of its members decides to 
withhold certain evidence in order to protect a witness, but if 
such evidence is withheld, the subcommittee shall inform the 
respondent that evidence is being withheld and of the count to 
which such evidence relates.
    (d) Neither the respondent nor his counsel shall, directly 
or indirectly, contact the subcommittee or any member thereof 
during the period of time set forth in paragraph (c) except for 
the sole purpose of settlement discussions where counsels for 
the respondent and the subcommittee are present.
    (e) If, at any time after the issuance of a Statement of 
Alleged Violation, the Committee or any subcommittee thereof 
determines that it intends to use evidence not provided to a 
respondent under paragraph (c) to prove the charges contained 
in the Statement of Alleged Violation (or any amendment 
thereof), such evidence shall be made immediately available to 
the respondent, and it may be used in any further proceeding 
under the Committee's rules.
    (f) Evidence provided pursuant to paragraph (c) or (e) 
shall be made available to the respondent and his or her 
counsel only after each agrees, in writing, that no document, 
information, or other materials obtained pursuant to that 
paragraph shall be made public until--
    (1) such time as a Statement of Alleged Violation is made 
public by the Committee if the respondent has waived the 
adjudicatory hearing; or
    (2) the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing if the 
respondent has not waived anadjudicatory hearing; but the 
failure of respondent and his counsel to so agree in writing, and 
therefore not receive the evidence, shall not preclude the issuance of 
a Statement of Alleged Violation at the end of the period referenced to 
in (c).
    (g) A respondent shall receive written notice whenever--
    (1) the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member determine that 
information the Committee has received constitutes a complaint;
    (2) a complaint or allegation is transmitted to an 
investigative subcommittee;
    (3) that subcommittee votes to authorize its first subpoena 
or to take testimony under oath, whichever occurs first; and
    (4) the Committee votes to expand the scope of the inquiry 
of an investigative subcommittee.
    (h) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a 
Statement of Alleged Violation and a respondent enters into an 
agreement with that subcommittee to settle a complaint on which 
the Statement is based, that agreement, unless the respondent 
requests otherwise, shall be in writing and signed by the 
respondent and the respondent's counsel, the Chairman and 
Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee, and the outside 
counsel, if any.
    (i) Statements or information derived solely from a 
respondent or his counsel during any settlement discussions 
between the Committee or a subcommittee thereof and the 
respondent shall not be included in any report of the 
subcommittee or the Committee or otherwise publicly disclosed 
without the consent of the respondent.
    (j) Whenever a motion to establish an investigative 
subcommittee does not prevail, the Committee shall promptly 
send a letter to the respondent informing him of such vote.
    (k) Witnesses shall be afforded a reasonable period of 
time, as determined by the Committee or subcommittee, to 
prepare for an appearance before an investigative subcommittee 
or for an adjudicatory hearing and to obtain counsel.
    (l) Prior to their testimony, witnesses shall be furnished 
a printed copy of the Committee's Rules of Procedure and the 
provisions of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
applicable to the rights of witnesses.
    (m) Witnesses may be accompanied by their own counsel for 
the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional 
rights. The Chairman may punish breaches of order and decorum, 
and of professional responsibility on the part of counsel, by 
censure and exclusion from the hearings; and the Committee may 
cite the offender to the House of Representatives for contempt.
    (n) Each witness subpoenaed to provide testimony or other 
evidence shall be provided the same per diem rate as 
established, authorized, and regulated by the Committee on 
House Administration for Members, officers and employees of the 
House, and as the Chairman considers appropriate, actual 
expenses of travel to or from the place of examination. No 
compensation shall be authorized for attorney's fees or for a 
witness' lost earnings. Such per diem may not be paid if a 
witness had been summoned at the place of examination.
    (o) With the approval of the Committee, a witness, upon 
request, may be provided with a transcript of his or her 
deposition or other testimony taken in executive session, or, 
with the approval of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 
may be permitted to examine such transcript in the office of 
the Committee. Any such request shall be in writing and shall 
include a statement that the witness, and counsel, agree to 
maintain the confidentiality of all executive session 
proceedings covered by such transcript.

                       Rule 27. Frivolous Filings

    If a complaint or information offered as a complaint is 
deemed frivolous by an affirmative vote of a majority of the 
members of the Committee, the Committee may take such action as 
it, by an affirmative vote of its members, deems appropriate in 
the circumstances.

           Rule 28. Referrals to Federal or State Authorities

    Referrals made under clause 3(a)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives may be made by an affirmative 
vote of two-thirds of the members of the Committee.

             U.S. Government Printing Office: 2004   95-724
                              APPENDIX II
                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                    Washington, DC, March 11, 2004.
    Dear Colleague: In recent weeks a number of statements have 
appeared in the news media that reflect a serious 
misunderstanding of the work and the practices of the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct. While we are confident that 
the overwhelming majority of Members correctly understand the 
Committee and its processes, we, as the Chairman and Ranking 
Minority Member of the Committee, wanted to provide you with 
our thoughts and experiences on this important subject.
    Turning first to the fundamentals, both of us devote a 
great deal of time and energy to the Committee's work, and we 
take our responsibilities very seriously. We are absolutely 
committed to taking all reasonable steps to ensure that all 
House Members and staff comply fully with the House rules and 
standards of conduct. We are also fully committed to pursuing 
any credible claim that a Member or staff person has violated 
any provision of the House rules. An equally important 
commitment we share is to perform our Committee 
responsibilities on an entirely non-partisan basis, and to 
ensure that the Committee and the ethics processes of the House 
are not again used--as they were used in the past--for partisan 
or political purposes. All of these commitments are ones that 
we share as well with all of the Committee members, with whom 
we are proud to serve.
    While conducting inquiries on possible violations of the 
rules is an important part of the Committee's work, the 
Committee has at least two other broad responsibilities:
           To educate Members and staff on the rules 
        and standards of conduct, and to respond to their 
        inquiries on how the rules apply in specific 
        circumstances (and, as a related matter, to propose 
        changes in the rules as the need arises); and
           To review the Financial Disclosure 
        Statements and the travel disclosure forms filed by 
        Members and staff (as well as the financial disclosures 
        of candidates for the House) for the purpose of 
        ensuring both that the disclosure requirements are 
        being complied with, and that the activity reflected in 
        the disclosures is in accord with the applicable laws 
        and rules.

Some elaboration on each of these Committee responsibilities 
follows.
    Committee enforcement actions since 1997. Commentors on the 
House ethics process often note that in 1997, the House deleted 
from its rules a provision that gave outside organizations and 
individuals a limited ability to file complaints with the 
Committee, and they assert that as a result, there has been a 
severe drop-off in Committee enforcement actions. Nothing could 
be further from the truth, because, in fact, since 1997, the 
Committee has made extensive use of its authority under the 
rules to self-initiate inquiries. While the Committee has long 
had the authority to self-initiate cases, this authority has 
been used far more frequently since 1997 than it was prior to 
then.
    Specifically, the Committee rules authorize the Chairman 
and the Ranking Minority Member to initiate informal fact-
finding whenever information indicating a violation of the 
House rules or standards of conduct comes to their attention. 
Since 1997, that authority has been exercised in 18 
instances.\1\ Usually these inquiries were initiated on the 
basis of information in the news media that came to our 
attention directly and/or was provided by an outside 
organization, but some were initiated based on information 
provided directly to the Committee by individuals. Most of 
these matters are now closed, but a number of them are ongoing. 
In two of those instances, both of which are a matter of public 
record, the result of the inquiry was a recommendation to the 
full Committee that a formal investigation be initiated, and in 
both, such an investigation was completed. We noted one other 
informal inquiry we have undertaken in a public statement that 
we issued last month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ As we discuss below, there are, in addition, a number of 
instances in which the Committee commenced an enforcement action on the 
basis of information contained in a financial disclosure or travel 
disclosure form filed by a Member or staff person that indicated a 
possible violation of House rules or law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Otherwise, it has been our practice, as well as that of our 
predecessors since 1997, not to publicly disclose any 
information on these inquiries, or the conclusions that have 
been reached in them. The major reason for this is that our 
experience has been that this procedure is most effective when 
conducted on a confidential basis. In undertaking any inquiry, 
our major purposes are to learn what occurred, and, unless the 
conduct involved warrants a sanction, to ensure that any 
improper conduct ceases and does not recur. Provided that the 
Member or staff person involved cooperates fully with the 
Committee, and we are satisfied that we have obtained all of 
the material facts, these purposes can be achieved 
expeditiously, and without resort to a time-consuming, 
expensive formal investigation. In short, it has been our 
experience that confidentiality facilitates cooperation and 
compliance. If and when, in our conduct of an inquiry, we 
determine that these purposes have been achieved, we bring the 
matter to a close.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Certain of these inquiries have indicated a need for the 
Committee to issue an advisory memorandum to House Members and staff on 
a particular subject, and in those instances, we have followed up by 
issuing such an advisory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nevertheless, we are concerned to the extent our treatment 
of these matters on a confidential basis results in a 
perception, however incorrect, that we have taken no action on 
matters where there is credible information indicating a 
violation of the rules. As in the past, it is our intention to 
consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether information on the 
status or disposition of a particular matter may be appropriate 
to release.
    The so-called ``ethics truce''. Commentors on the House 
ethics process often refer to a ``truce'' between the parties 
regarding the filing of ethics complaints.\3\ There was a 
House-imposed moratorium on the filing of complaints that was 
in effect for most of 1997, pending House consideration of 
proposed changes in the ethics process. That moratorium was in 
effect only until action on the rules changes was completed, 
and it expired once the Committee was reconstituted. 
Nevertheless, it may well be that Members have refrained from 
filing complaints, which they believed in good faith should 
have been filed, simply out of concern that such action would 
prompt the filing of retaliatory complaints against members of 
their own party. To the extent this has occurred, we believe 
that it is regrettable, and that we can assuage the concerns of 
any Member in that position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ It should also be noted that not all complaints filed with the 
Committee necessarily become public knowledge. There is certainly no 
requirement that the filer of a complaint publicly disclose his or her 
action, and, indeed, the decision of a complainant to refrain from 
making a public statement may be taken as an indication that the action 
is not motivated by political considerations. A provision of the House 
rules prohibits the Committee from publicly disclosing ``the contents 
of a complaint or the fact of its filing . . . unless specifically 
authorized in each instance by a vote of the full committee.'' House 
Rule 11, cl. 3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To begin with, we believe that in recent years the 
Committee has developed a well-deserved reputation for acting 
in an entirely fair, non-partisan manner. Every Member can be 
assured that any complaint filed with the Committee will be 
handled in a fair, thorough and non-partisan manner. We also 
believe that we and the other Committee members are more than 
capable of identifying any complaint that is, in fact, 
frivolous, and of sanctioning any Member who attempts to misuse 
the ethics process for partisan or political purposes. It is 
also conceivable that some Members may have had a concern of an 
entirely different nature, i.e., the possibility that filing a 
complaint may generate other complaints, with the result that 
there would be Committee inquiries on matters on which the 
Committee otherwise would not have acted. To the extent there 
is any such concern, it is clearly not well founded, because of 
our extensive use of the authority to self-initiate enforcement 
actions.
    Any Member considering filing a complaint should pay close 
attention to the applicable House and Committee rules. For 
example, the Committee is prohibited from undertaking an 
investigation of an alleged violation that occurred before the 
third previous Congress, unless the Committee determines that 
the alleged violation is directly related to one that occurred 
in a more recent Congress (House Rule 11, cl. 3(b)(3); 
Committee Rule 15(i)). In addition, the Committee will not 
accept any complaint that is submitted within 60 days prior to 
an election in which the subject of the complaint is a 
candidate (Committee Rule l5(h)). Furthermore, the Committee 
may defer action on a complaint when the Committee has reason 
to believe that the conduct involved is being reviewed by law 
enforcement or regulatory authorities (Committee Rule 15(f)). 
Finally, a number of specific requirements for complaints are 
set out in Committee Rule 15, clauses (a)-(e).
    But it is important for everyone to understand that, as we 
indicated earlier, Member complaints are by no means the only 
vehicle by which Committee enforcementactions are begun. 
Outside individuals and organizations are free to submit to the 
Committee any information they wish relating to the conduct of a Member 
or a staff person, and as we've made clear, any credible information 
that is submitted to the Committee or otherwise comes to our attention 
may be used as the basis for a self-initiated inquiry.
    The Committee's advice and education efforts. We believe 
that the Committee's advice and education efforts--that is, its 
efforts aimed at preventing violations from occurring in the 
first place--are as important as its enforcement activities. 
Thus for a number of years the Committee has maintained a 
vigorous advice and education program that has included 
issuance of numerous advisory memoranda and other publications, 
the holding of briefings open to all House Members and staff, 
holding briefings for individual offices upon request, and 
maintaining a staff of attorneys who are readily available to 
discuss the rules and respond to questions.
    In addition, in response to the written request of any 
Member or staff person on his or her current or proposed 
conduct, the Committee will issue a private, formal advisory 
opinion letter. We especially encourage Members and staff to 
seek a written advisory opinion where the circumstances 
involved are unusual or complex.
    We are very pleased that in this Congress, Members and 
staff are showing a greatly increased willingness to use this 
service of the Committee. Thus far in this Congress, the 
Committee has issued over 600 advisory opinion letters to 
Members and staff and letters providing information on the 
rules to outside organizations that are planning a trip or an 
event. The advisory opinion letters cover virtually the entire 
range of subjects addressed in the House rules, including gifts 
and travel offered to Members and staff, campaign activity by 
congressional staff members, the outside earned income and 
employment limitations applicable to Members and senior staff, 
conflict of interest, and the post-employment restrictions.
    Review of Financial Disclosure Statements and travel 
disclosure forms. Yet another Committee responsibility is to 
oversee the financial disclosure system for House Members and 
staff and candidates for the House. The task of reviewing the 
statements is performed by the Committee staff, and staff also 
reviews the Member and employee travel disclosure forms that 
are filed under the House gift rule. In this Congress to date, 
staff has reviewed over 2,300 Financial Disclosure Statements, 
and we anticipate that the total number of financial 
disclosures that will be filed this year, including the 
candidate statements, will be about 4,000.
    There is a two-fold purpose to these reviews: to ensure 
that the disclosure requirements are being complied with, and 
that the activity reflected in the disclosures filed by House 
Members and staff is in accord with the applicable rules and 
laws. At times these disclosures will indicate an action that 
was possibly improper, such as acceptance of impermissible 
travel expenses under the gift rule, acceptance of income in 
violation of the outside earned income or outside employment 
limitations, or the making of an excessive charitable donation 
in lieu of an honorarium. Where this occurs, the Committee 
requests pertinent information from the individual. Where it is 
determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee takes 
appropriate action. In the case of improper acceptance of 
travel expenses or outside income, the remedy has frequently 
included a requirement for repayment with personal funds.
    At times such an action will necessitate the filing of an 
amended disclosure, but the Committee's practice has not been 
to publicize these actions otherwise. This practice has been 
based on the same reasons that underlie the Committee's general 
policy of maintaining its informal inquiries on a confidential 
basis, as explained above.

           *         *         *         *         *

    The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is a unique 
entity in the House, having a membership that is equally 
divided between the parties, and the sensitive nature of its 
responsibilities requires that its duties be performed with 
diligence and discretion. In fulfilling our responsibilities, 
we seek neither to protect Members from valid claims of 
improper conduct nor to needlessly harass Members. Rather, we 
seek simply to apply the rules in a fair, non-partisan and 
even-handed manner, to the end of protecting the integrity and 
the reputation of the House of Representatives.
    We recognize that it is possible for individuals reasonably 
to disagree with the determinations that we and the Committee 
have made in interpreting and implementing the House rules and 
standards of conduct. But we can assure you that our actions 
have and will continue to reflect our best judgment on the 
requirements of the rules, and the needs and interests of the 
House. We would be happy to discuss with you any questions or 
concerns you may have regarding the Committee and its 
processes.
            Sincerely,
                                   Joel Hefley,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Alan B. Mollohan,
                                           Ranking Minority Member.
                              APPENDIX III
                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                   Washington, DC, October 6, 2004.
Hon. Tom DeLay,
Majority Leader,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Colleague: As you are aware, the Committee has made a 
number of decisions regarding the allegations made in the 
complaint that was filed against you by Representative Bell on 
June 15, 2004. This letter implements determinations made by 
the Committee that you be admonished for your conduct in two 
respects:
           Your participation in and facilitation of an 
        energy company golf fundraiser at The Homestead resort 
        for your leadership PACs on June 2-3, 2002. Those 
        actions were objectionable under House standards of 
        conduct because, at a minimum, they created an 
        appearance that donors were being provided special 
        access to you regarding the then-pending energy 
        legislation.
           Your intervention in a partisan conflict in 
        the Texas House of Representatives using the resources 
        of a Federal agency, the Federal Aviation 
        Administration. This action raises serious concerns 
        under House standards of conduct that preclude use of 
        governmental resources for a political undertaking.

The bases of these Committee determinations are as follows.
    Your actions regarding the energy company golf fundraiser 
at The Homestead resort on June 2-3, 2002. With regard to the 
solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions, the 
Committee has clearly stated that a Member may not make any 
solicitation that may create even an appearance that, because 
of a contribution, a contributor will receive or is entitled to 
either special treatment or special access to the Member in his 
or her official capacity. This point is made on p. 34 of the 
Campaign Activity booklet that the Committee issued in December 
2001.\1\ In the same vein, a Member should not participate in a 
fundraising event that gives even an appearance that donors 
will receive or are entitled to either special treatment or 
special access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ More generally, under House standards of conduct as set out in 
Committee publications, a Member may not make any solicitation for 
campaign or political contributions that is linked with any specific 
official action taken or to be taken by that Member. In addition, a 
Member may not accept any contribution that is linked with any specific 
official action taken or to be taken by that Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the basis of the information before the Committee, the 
Committee concluded that your participation in and facilitation 
of the energy company golf fundraiser at The Homestead resort 
on June 2-3, 2002 is objectionable in that those actions, at a 
minimum, created such an improper appearance. As a general 
matter, fundraisers directed to a particular industry or to 
others sharing a particular federal interest are permissible, 
and at such events Members are free to talk about their record 
and positions on issues of interest to the attendees. In 
addition, of course, a Member has no control over what the 
donors at a fundraising event spontaneously say to or ask of 
the Member with regard to their legislative interests. 
Nevertheless, there are a number of considerations regarding 
this particular fundraiser that make your participation in and 
facilitation of the fundraiser objectionable under the above-
stated standards of conduct.
    In particular, there was the timing of the fundraiser, 
i.e., it took place just as the House-Senate conference on 
major energy legislation, H.R. 4, was about to get underway. 
Indeed, one of the communications between organizers of the 
fundraiser that you provided to us--an e-mail of May 30, 2002 
from Mr. Maloney to Mr. Perkins that notes the legislative 
interests of each of the attendees--includes a specific 
reference to the conference. That legislation was of critical 
importance to the attendees. In addition, there was the fact 
that you were in a position to significantly influence the 
conference, both as a member of the House leadership and, by 
action taken about a week and a half after the fundraiser, your 
appointment as one of the conferees.
    In view of these considerations, other aspects of the 
fundraiser that would have been unobjectionable otherwise had 
the effect, in these specific circumstances, of furthering the 
appearance that the contributors were receiving impermissible 
special treatment or access. One of these aspects was the 
presence at the fundraiser of two of your key staff members 
from your leadership office: Jack Victory, who handled energy 
issues, and your office counsel, Carl Thorsen. In addition, 
there were the limited number of attendees, and the fact that 
the fundraiser included several events at a resort over a two-
day period, both of which facilitated direct contact with you 
and your congressional staff members.
    We also note the description of the event that was provided 
to the Committee by counsel for the attendees of one of the 
contributors, Westar Energy, Inc. That description includes the 
following:

    On Sunday, June 2, 2002 Douglas Sterbenz and Doug Lawrence 
[Westar executives] attended a reception and dinner with 
fifteen to twenty others at the Homestead. Representative Tom 
DeLay was present for the reception and dinner. Mr. DeLay asked 
the group to advise him of any interest we had in Federal 
Energy Legislation. Mr. Lawrence advised Mr. DeLay that Westar 
supported repeal of the P.U.C.H.A. [sic] provision in the 
Energy Bill, provided that Westar's restructuring wouldn't be 
harmedby the [r]epeal. Lawrence advised that Westar needed a 
grandfather clause to continue as a safe harbor if P.U.C.H.A. was to be 
repealed. The following day, Mr. Lawrence provided a staff aide to Rep. 
DeLay a bound briefing book that Westar had put together on this issue. 
[emphasis added]
    On June 3rd, 2002, Mr. Lawrence attended a golf outing at 
the Homestead where he played golf with the attendees. Mr. 
Lawrence shared a cart with an aide to Congressman DeLay and 
advised the aide he would give him the materials in the 
briefing book and later did. At lunch that day, Mr. Sterbenz, 
Mr. Lawrence and others participating in the golf outing had 
lunch. During the lunch Mr. Lawrence restated to Rep. DeLay 
Westar's position regarding the need for a grandfather clause 
if P.U.H.C.A. was to be repealed.

    When we brought the above-quoted statement to your 
attention and requested your response to it, you stated that 
you gave a general briefing on energy issues at that event, but 
that you have no recollection of your specific remarks. You 
also stated that ``it would not be typical'' for you to have 
made such a statement at a fundraiser, and that this is not at 
all consistent with the manner in which you ``normally would 
interact with attendees at such an event.'' In view of your 
response, the Committee's determination on this matter is not 
based on Mr. Lawrence's characterization of your remarks. 
Rather, the other circumstances of the event, as set forth 
above, are more than sufficient to support the Committee's 
determination.
    In addition, while the views of any one donor are not 
dispositive on whether a fundraising activity creates an 
appearance of impropriety, the documents we obtained indicate 
that the individuals who were active on Westar's behalf were of 
the view that the company's participation in the fundraiser 
provided special access to you. In this regard, later in June 
2002, when Mr. Lawrence was proposing that Westar executives 
make additional contributions, he stated that Westar had made 
``significant progress'' with you and Representative Barton, 
and that, ``The contributions made in the first round were 
successful in opening the appropriate dialogue.'' When we asked 
Mr. Lawrence about that statement, he said he was referring to 
the presentations he was able to make at the fundraiser earlier 
that month. In addition, the following month, when Westar's 
lobbyist, Mr. Richard Bornemann, sent a memorandum to your 
staff seeking an appointment with you for the company's CEO, he 
noted Westar's participation in The Homestead fundraiser.
    Your use of governmental resources for a political 
undertaking. The Committee has long taken the position that 
House standards of conduct prohibit Members from taking (or 
withholding) any official action on the basis of the partisan 
affiliation (or the campaign support) of the individuals 
involved. This is the point made in an advisory memorandum that 
the Committee issued to House Members, officers and employees 
on May 11, 1999. In addition, a provision of the Code of Ethics 
for Government Service, which the Committee deems to be fully 
applicable to House Members and staff, requires that federal 
officials ``[u]phold the Constitution, laws, and legal 
regulations of the United States and of all governments therein 
and never be a party to their evasion.'' These laws include, of 
course, those that generally prohibit the use of governmental 
resources for political purposes--particularly 31 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1301, which provides that official funds are to be used 
only for the purposes for which appropriated, and, with regard 
to executive branch personnel, the Hatch Act, which prohibits 
those employees from engaging in political activity while on 
duty or in a government building.
    Your intervention in a partisan conflict in the Texas House 
of Representatives using the resources of a Federal agency, the 
Federal Aviation Administration, raises serious concerns under 
these standards of conduct. Your contacts with the FAA were in 
connection with the dispute over congressional redistricting in 
the Texas House of Representatives that occurred in May 2003. 
The purpose of these contacts was to obtain information on the 
whereabouts of Democratic Members of the Texas House who had 
absented themselves from Austin for the purpose of denying the 
House a quorum. You have stated to us that you made these 
contacts at the request of the Speaker of the Texas House of 
Representatives, who was seeking information on the location of 
an airplane that was shuttling the absent legislators, and that 
you relayed the information you had obtained on the location of 
the airplane solely to the Texas House Speaker.
    The submissions that you made to the Committee argue that 
those contacts with the FAA were proper, but those arguments 
are not persuasive.
    First, your submissions assert that the Inspector General 
of the U.S Department of Transportation (DOT IG) found no 
wrongdoing in this matter. It is correct that the statement 
that the DOT IG submitted to the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee states, ``We did not find that actions 
[taken by the FAA official whom your office contacted] in this 
matter to have violated any rules or regulations.'' However, 
the assertion made in your submissions disregards a number of 
important considerations. To begin with, the DOT IG's statement 
raises specific concern about the FAA official's failure to 
inquire of your staff member as to why she was requesting 
information on the location of the particular airplane, ``[W]e 
do not understand why he did not ask the staffer about the 
purpose of her request--particularly since he told us he 
thought it might involve a safety issue.'' In addition, there 
are the statements made by the FAA official to the DOT IG 
regarding his views of the requests of your office and his 
handling of them after he learned about the absent Texas 
legislators on May 13th:

          I figured out why they were calling . . . I just felt 
        like I had been used . . . I don't do anything for 
        political purposes . . . and I just did not like . . . 
        somebody calling me for political reasons . . . I would 
        never use my office to help somebody politically, for 
        any political reasons, period.

He also stated that in hindsight, ``he would have handled the 
staffer's request differently, by coordinating with the FAA 
Chief Counsel's Office and senior agency officials, along with 
asking the requestor for background about the request.'' In 
short, without being apprised of the reason for the request, 
the FAA was denied the opportunity to make a prior, reasoned 
determination on whether collecting and providing the requested 
information would be both permissible and appropriate under the 
laws, rules and policies governing the FAA at the time.
    Yet another pertinent point here is that on July 15, 2003, 
upon the recommendation of the DOT IG, the FAA issued an order 
setting out a specific policy regarding disclosure of aircraft 
and flight data from FAA information systems. That policy 
includes the following basic provision:

          No request for Flight Track Data shall be granted 
        unless it is first determined that the request is being 
        made in the interest of aviation safety or efficiency, 
        or for an official purpose by a United States 
        Government agency or law enforcement organization with 
        respect to an ongoing investigation.

    In sum, the statements made by the FAA official regarding 
his views of his actions after he had learned the purpose of 
the requests, and the FAA's later establishment of a 
restrictive policy on responding to such requests, indicate a 
larger concern about the propriety of the FAA's response to 
your requests for information, regardless of whether, in the 
specific circumstances, the actions of the FAA official did not 
violate the FAA rules or regulations that were in effect at the 
time.
    Second, it is asserted that the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure found no wrongdoing in this 
matter. In this regard, the report that the Transportation 
Committee issued on this matter states with regard to the DOT 
IG's report, ``[T]here were no findings that federal resources 
were misused or that agency personnel violated any departmental 
rules or regulations.'' Because the Transportation Committee 
report merely characterizes the findings of the DOT IG, the 
materials set out above regarding the DOT IG's report respond 
to this assertion as well. It should also be noted that it is 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and not the 
Transportation Committee, that has the jurisdiction to make 
determinations regarding the official conduct of House Members 
and staff.
    Third, your submissions assert that the information that 
you sought and that was provided to you is publicly available 
over the Internet. Indeed, according to the statement of the 
DOT IG, ``[C]omparable information--including near real-time 
aircraft locator data--is currently available to the general 
public through commercial databases accessible via the 
internet.'' However, the issues discussed here have arisen 
because you did not obtain the information on the location of 
the particular aircraft from one of the commercial databases, 
but instead you obtained it from FAA databases using the 
services of FAA personnel.
    Finally, your submissions assert that these contacts were 
proper because they were made in the context of a ``legitimate 
law enforcement issue.'' While acknowledging that this matter 
arose out of a political dispute, one of your submissions 
states that it ``was a proper matter for the law enforcement 
authorities of Texas,'' citing certain letters of the Sergeant-
at-Arms and the Texas Attorney General on the matter. However, 
review of those documents establishes that to the extent that 
there was any ``enforcement'' issue here, it was solely a 
matter of enforcement of rules of the Texas House of 
Representatives that govern its Members.
    Indeed, this consideration highlights a separate basis on 
which the contacts with the FAA were objectionable, and that is 
that such use of federal executive branch resources to resolve 
an issue before a state legislative body raises serious 
concerns under the fundamental concepts of separation of powers 
and federalism. The enforcement of the rules of the Texas 
House--like enforcement of the rules of the U.S. House of 
Representatives or any other legislative body--is the 
responsibility of the Members, officers and employees of that 
body.
    Insofar as enforcing the rules of the Texas House on Member 
attendance is concerned, the rules of that body provide that 
this is the responsibility of ``the sergeant-at-arms or an 
officer appointed by the sergeant-at-arms.'' Whether it is 
permissible and appropriate for the Texas House Sergeant-at-
Arms to appoint every official of the Texas Department of 
Public Safety as such an officer, as occurred here, is a matter 
to be resolved by Texas authorities under Texas law. However, 
the invocation of Federal executive branch resources in a 
partisan dispute before a state legislative body is a different 
matter entirely, and such action raises the serious concerns 
that are set out here.

           *         *         *         *         *

     We note that your response to the Committee's decision of 
last week included the statement. ``During my entire career I 
have worked to advance my party's legislative agenda.'' Your 
actions that are addressed in this letter, as well as those 
addressed in the Committee's decision of last week and in prior 
Committee actions, are all ones that, in a broad sense, were 
directed to the advancement of your legislative agenda. Those 
actions are also ones that your peers who sit on this Committee 
determined, after careful consideration, went beyond the bounds 
of acceptable conduct.
    As you are aware, it does not suffice for any House Member 
to assert that his or her actions violated no law, or violated 
no specific prohibition or requirement of the House Rules. The 
House Code of Official Conduct broadly requires that every 
House Member, officer and employee ``conduct himself at all 
times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.'' 
It is particularly important that members of the House 
leadership, who are the most publicly visible Members, adhere 
to this requirement scrupulously. The fact that a violation 
results from the overaggressive pursuit of one's legislative 
agenda simply does not constitute a mitigating factor.
    In addition, a state criminal investigation of the 2002 
election activities of the Texans for a Republican Majority 
PAC, with which you were involved during the period in 
question, is underway. While Committee action on Count II of 
the complaint regarding those activities has been deferred 
pending further action in the state cases and investigation, 
the Committee will act on the underlying allegations at an 
appropriate time.
    In view of the number of instances to date in which the 
Committee has found it necessary to comment on conduct in which 
you have engaged,\2\ it is clearly necessary for you to temper 
your future actions to assure that you are in full compliance 
at all times with the applicable House Rules and standards of 
conduct. We remind you that the House Code of Official Conduct 
provides the Committee with authority ``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.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ In addition to the two matters addressed in this letter and the 
conduct addressed in the Committee report of last week, there was the 
Committee letter to you of November 7, 1997 that concerned, in part, 
statements that may create the impression that official access or 
action are linked with campaign contributions, and a confidential 
Committee letter to you of May 7, 1999.
    \3\ House Ethics Manual at 12 (reprinting excerpt from the 1968 
committee report on the House Code of Official Conduct (emphasis 
added)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Sincerely,
                                   Joel Hefley,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Alan B. Mollohan,
                                           Ranking Minority Member.
                              APPENDIX IV
                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                 Washington, DC, November 18, 2004.
Hon. Chris Bell,
House of Representatives,
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Colleague: As you know, last month the Committee made 
a number of decisions regarding the complaint you filed against 
Representative Tom DeLay on June 15, 2004, but the Committee 
deferred decision on the issue of whether your complaint 
violated Committee Rule 15(a)(4). That provision states that a 
complaint ``shall not contain innuendo, speculative assertions, 
or conclusory statements.''
    As detailed in this letter, the Committee finds that your 
complaint violated Committee Rule 15(a)(4) in a number of 
respects. Because you personally signed this complaint and 
transmitted it directly to the Committee under Committee Rule 
14(a)(1), you are responsible for the contents of the complaint 
in their entirety, and thus you are responsible for these 
violations.
    This is a serious matter. The House Code of Official 
Conduct provides that a House Member, officer or employee 
``shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the 
House and to the rules of duly constituted committees 
thereof.'' House Rule 23, cl. 2. In addition, the Committee 
Rule implicated here is an important one, the purposes of 
which, quite clearly, are to maintain a level of decorum in 
Committee proceedings and to discourage use of the Committee 
for political purposes. Indeed, it appears there is no purpose 
for including excessive or inflammatory language or exaggerated 
charges in a complaint except in an attempt to attract 
publicity and, hence, a political advantage. This improper 
political purpose was highlighted in this instance by the 
various efforts you undertook to promote your complaint 
publicly, by including such excessive or inflammatory language 
or exaggerated charges in press releases and other public 
statements. The fact that the Committee ultimately determined 
to issue a letter of admonition to Representative DeLay on 
bases other than the materials specified below does not 
mitigate your violation.
    The specific respects in which your complaint violated the 
rule include the following. To begin with, para. 7 of the 
complaint asserted that,

          Congressman DeLay violated 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b)(2), 
        as well as clause 3 of House Rule XXIII (the Code of 
        Official Conduct), by soliciting campaign contributions 
        from Westar Energy in return for legislative assistance 
        on the energy bill.

The statute that is referred to in this paragraph, 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 201(b)(2), is the federal criminal statute on bribery. 
There can hardly be a more serious charge against a public 
official than that he or she solicited a bribe, i.e., something 
of value that is given or received specifically in exchange for 
an official act. Yet as the Committee noted in its analysis of 
Count I, the facts relating to Westar that were alleged in the 
complaint did not come even close to supporting this extremely 
serious claim.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The facts alleged in the complaint with regard to Westar are 
summarized and discussed on pp. 6-8 and 14 of the memorandum that the 
Committee released on October 6, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other assertions made in the complaint that constituted 
innuendo, speculative assertions, or conclusory statements 
include the following:
           Paragraph 4 of the complaint stated, ``Since 
        first assuming a position in the House Leadership, 
        Representative Tom DeLay has engaged in a concerted and 
        relentless effort to use the official resources of 
        office to advance and underwrite a program of blatantly 
        partisan political activities in violation of rules, 
        statutes and standards of conduct applicable to 
        Members.'' This broad allegation of serious misconduct 
        spanning a period of years was not supported by the 
        facts alleged in the complaint.
           Paragraph 17 asserted that ``the Standards 
        of Official Conduct Committee should . . . find that 
        Rep. DeLay was `dispensing special favors' [to Westar] 
        in violation of the House Rules.'' However, while the 
        complaint made allegations regarding actions taken on 
        the legislative provision sought by Westar, it alleged 
        no action whatsoever taken by Representative DeLay with 
        regard to that legislation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The facts alleged in the complaint with regard to this matter 
are summarized and discussed on pp. 8 and 22 of the Committee 
memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           A footnote to para. 19 of the complaint 
        referred to contributions received by Representative 
        DeLay from Bacardi U.S.A. and its PAC and asserts that, 
        ``In return for Bacardi's financial support, DeLay has 
        pushed a piece of legislation . . . that would alter 
        U.S. trademark rules to benefit Bacardi.'' However, no 
        facts supporting the allegation that Representative 
        DeLay's actions on this matter were ``[i]n return for'' 
        the contributions were asserted.
    In addition, the complaint made a number of allegations 
against Representative DeLay with regard to his staff's 
contacts with the Federal Aviation Administration and the 
Department of Justice, and assertedly those allegations were 
based on the reports issued by the Inspectors General of 
Departments of Justice and Transportation respectively. 
However, those allegations did not correctly reflect the 
information set out in those reports, and specifically,
           Paragraph 50 of the complaint described the 
        activities undertaken by the FAA with regard to the 
        particular aircraft involved, and the clear implication 
        of this paragraph was that all of those activities 
        resulted from the contact from Representative DeLay's 
        office.\3\ In fact, the report of the DOT IG attributes 
        the described agency activities to all of the contacts 
        it had received regarding the particular aircraft, 
        including those received from the Texas Department of 
        Public Safety, and not solely to the contacts from 
        Representative DeLay's office. In addition, according 
        to the report, the FAA safety ``alert'' that was 
        referenced in para. 50 was the result of an inquiry 
        from the Texas DPS, not from Representative DeLay's 
        office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Paragraph 49 of the complaint makes allegations regarding the 
DeLay staff contact with the FAA, and para. 50 states, ``According to 
the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, the request for 
information regarding the location of Rep. Laney's airplane required at 
least 13 FAA officials at several different facilities to check records 
and contact other FAA officials in an effort to locate the plane. H.R. 
Rep. 108-220 at 8. The FAA instituted a safety `alert' on the Laney 
plane for the region covered by the FAA's Dallas-Ft. Worth Control 
Center. Under the alert, a message was sent to all 29 air traffic 
control facilities and airport towers in the region asking if they had 
any information about the aircraft.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Paragraph 51 of the complaint alleged that 
        counsel to Representative DeLay contacted a Justice 
        Department official ``requesting the Department's 
        assistance in enforcing the `arrest' warrant issued by 
        the Texas Sergeant-at-Arms'' and contacted the United 
        States Attorney for the Western District of Texas. 
        However, according to the pages of the DOJ IG report 
        that were cited in this paragraph of the complaint, 
        Representative DeLay's counsel did not make such a 
        request of the Justice Department official, and he did 
        not contact the U.S. Attorney.
           Paragraph 52 alleged that Representative 
        DeLay contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as 
        well as the FAA and the Justice Department, but the 
        report of the DOJ IG reflects no contact made by 
        Representative DeLay's office with the FBI.
    Finally, one allegation against Representative DeLay, made 
in para. 13, was based on a misstatement of the law. That 
paragraph alleged, in part, the following:

          If Mr. DeLay sought political donations from Westar 
        in return for his support of the Westar amendment, he 
        violated . . . the federal gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. 
        201(c), which provides that a public official who 
        demands, seeks or agrees to receive anything of value 
        for or because of any official act performed or to be 
        performed by such official is guilty of an offense.

While this allegation purported to paraphrase the illegal 
gratuity statute, it omitted the term ``personally,'' which 
appears in the statute after the phrase ``anything of value.'' 
Because of this term in the statute, it is well established 
that a bona fide campaign contribution cannot be the subject of 
an illegal gratuity charge, as such a contribution is not a 
benefit that is received ``personally.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ U.S. Dep't of Justice, Criminal Resources Manual Sec. 2045; 
United States v. Brewster, 506 F.2d 62, 77 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the time that we, in our capacities as Chairman and 
Ranking Minority Member, performed our initial review of your 
complaint under Committee Rule 16(a), we had the option to 
determine, on the basis of the above considerations, that your 
complaint did not satisfy ``the requirements of the Committee's 
rules for what constitutes a complaint'' and to return the 
complaint to you under Committee Rule 16(e). We elected not to 
do so for essentially two reasons. First, while your complaint 
contained innuendo, speculative assertions and conclusory 
statements, it also contained allegations that warranted 
Committee consideration. In addition, while this Committee rule 
has been in force for over 10 years, the Committee had not 
previously rejected any complaint for violating this rule, and 
the Committee had not previously issued any interpretations of 
the rule.
    This letter is being released publicly, and by its 
issuance, the Committee is putting all Members on notice of the 
need to comply with Committee Rule 15(a)(4), as well as all of 
the other provisions of Committee Rule 15, when submitting a 
complaint to the Committee. All Members are also now on notice 
that violation of any of those rules is a basis for summarily 
rejecting a complaint under Committee Rule 16(e) and depending 
on the circumstances, may also be the basis for initiating 
disciplinary action against the Member who makes the filing.

           *         *         *         *         *

    We also wish to bring to your attention a separate matter 
regarding the Committee's consideration of your complaint 
against Representative DeLay. In a newspaper article that 
appeared on September 15, 2004, a member of your staff, Eric 
Burns, was quoted as follows:

          The Republicans on the committee know DeLay would not 
        survive a full investigation, so they're trying to 
        protect their party boss. The committee faces a very 
        clear choice: They can stand up for the integrity of 
        the House, or they can protect politics as usual.\5\

    \5\ Bresnahan and Chappie, ``DeLay Probe Faces Deadlock,'' Roll 
Call, Sept. 25, 2004, p. 23.

    We have not inquired of your staff member whether he was 
quoted accurately, and we do not assume that he was. 
Nevertheless, we also wish to make the point to you--and, by 
public release of this letter, to all House Members and staff--
that it is highly improper, and a basis for the initiation of 
disciplinary action, for any House Member or staff person to 
attack the integrity of this Committee or any of its members.
            Sincerely,
                                   Joel Hefley,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Alan B. Mollohan,
                                           Ranking Minority Member.

                                  
