[House Report 112-739]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     112-739
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 541


                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
                      ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                               ----------                              

                                A REPORT

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




 December 31, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed



                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

                      ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
                                                                
112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     112-739

_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 541


                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

                      ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                               __________

                                A REPORT

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




 December 31, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed


                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                       Committee on Ethics,
                                 Washington, DC, December 31, 2012.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: 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 Ethics for 
the 112th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                   Jo Bonner,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez,
                                           Ranking Member.



                                                 Union Calendar No. 541
112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     112-739

======================================================================



 
                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
                      ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

 December 31, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Bonner and Ms. Sanchez, from the Committee on Ethics, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

    The Committee on Ethics is tasked with interpreting and 
enforcing the House's ethics rules. The Committee has sole 
jurisdiction over the interpretation of the Code of Official 
Conduct, which governs the acts of House Members, officers, and 
employees. The Committee is the only standing House committee 
with equal numbers of Democratic and Republican members. The 
operative staff of the Committee is required by rule to be 
professional and nonpartisan.
    In the 112th Congress the Committee was led by Chairman Jo 
Bonner and Ranking Member Linda T. Sanchez. The Members 
appointed at the beginning of the Congress were Michael T. 
McCaul, John A. Yarmuth, K. Michael Conaway, Donna F. Edwards, 
Charles W. Dent, Mazie Hirono, Gregg Harper and Pedro R. 
Pierluisi. In July 2011, Representative Joe Courtney replaced 
Representative Hirono.
    The Committee's core responsibilities include providing 
training, advice, and education to House Members, officers, and 
employees; reviewing and approving requests to accept 
privately-sponsored travel related to official duties; 
reviewing and certifying all financial disclosure reports 
Members, candidates and senior staff are required to file; and 
investigating and adjudicating allegations of misconduct and 
violations of rules, laws, or other standards of conduct.
    The Committee met 51 times in the 112th Congress, including 
16 times in 2011, and 35 times in 2012. Every Committee vote in 
the 112th Congress was unanimous.
    Within the scope of its training, advice and education, 
travel, and financial disclosure responsibilities, the 
Committee:
           Issued more than 900 formal advisory 
        opinions regarding ethics rules;
           Fielded more than 40,000 informal telephone 
        calls, emails, and in-person requests for guidance on 
        ethics issues;
           Released 23 advisory memoranda on various 
        ethics topics to the House;
           Provided training to approximately 10,000 
        House Members, officers, and employees each year, and 
        reviewed their certifications for satisfying the 
        House's mandatory training requirements; and
           Received more than 6,000 Financial 
        Disclosure Statements and amendments filed by House 
        Members, officers, senior staff, and House candidates.
           Received approximately 500 Periodic 
        Transaction Reports filed by House Members, officers, 
        and senior staff, containing thousands of transactions.
    In addition, the Committee actively investigates 
allegations against House Members, officers, and employees, 
using a mix of informal and formal investigative techniques to 
determine the validity of factual allegations, explore 
potential rules violations, and recommend appropriate sanctions 
and corrective actions. The Committee's options for 
investigating a matter include fact-gathering under Committee 
Rule 18(a), which may or may not be publicly disclosed, the 
empanelment of investigative subcommittees, and the review of 
transmittals from the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The 
fact that the Committee is investigating a particular matter or 
that a House Member, officer, or employee is referenced in an 
investigative matter should not be construed as a finding or 
suggestion that the Member, officer, or employee has committed 
any violation of the rules, law, or standards of conduct.
    During the 112th Congress, within the scope of its 
investigative responsibilities, the Committee:
           Commenced or continued investigative fact-
        gathering regarding 96 separate investigative matters;
           Empanelled 2 new investigative 
        subcommittees, in the matters of Representative Laura 
        Richardson and Representative Shelley Berkley;
           Re-empanelled the investigative subcommittee 
        in matters related to allegations against Former 
        Representative Eric Massa;
           Held 32 investigative subcommittee meetings; 
        Filed 14 reports with the House totaling nearly 1,700 
        pages regarding various investigative matters;
           Publicly addressed 27 matters, described in 
        Section V of this report;
           Resolved 42 additional matters;
           Conducted 102 voluntary witness interviews;
           Deposed 4 witnesses pursuant to subpoena;
           Authorized the issuance of 9 subpoenas; and
           Reviewed nearly 500,000 pages of documents.
    All votes taken in the investigative subcommittees were 
unanimous. In addition to the publicly-disclosed matters 
discussed in this report, there were a total of 34 
investigative matters pending before the Committee as of 
December 31, 2012.

                            I. Introduction

    House Rule XI, clause 1(d), requires each committee to 
submit to the House, not later than July 1 and December 31 of 
each 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. This report summarizes the activities 
of the Committee on Ethics for the semiannual period ending 
December 31, 2012, as well as for the entirety of the 112th 
Congress.
    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Ethics (``Committee'') 
is defined in clauses 1(g) and 11(g)(4) of House Rule X, clause 
3 of House Rule XI, and clause 5(h) of House Rule XXV. The text 
of those provisions is as follows:

                          Rule X, clause 1(g)

    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.
    * * *
    (g) Committee on Ethics.

                      The Code of Official Conduct


                        Rule X, clause 11(g)(4)

    (4) The Committee on Ethics 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 Ethics

    3. (a) The Committee on Ethics 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 the duties or the discharge of the 
responsibilities of such individual. 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 the responsibilities of such individual 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.
    (6)(A) The committee shall offer annual ethics training to 
each Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, and 
employee of the House. Such training shall--
    (i) involve the classes of employees for whom the committee 
determines such training to be appropriate; and
    (ii) include such knowledge of the Code of Official Conduct 
and related House rules as may be determined appropriate by the 
committee.
    (B)(i) A new officer or employee of the House shall receive 
training under this paragraph not later than 60 days after 
beginning service to the House.
    (ii) Not later than January 31 of each year, each officer 
and employee of the House shall file a certification with the 
committee that the officer or employee attended ethics training 
in the last year as established by this subparagraph.
    (b)(1)(A) Unless approved by an affirmative vote of a 
majority of its members, the Committee on Ethics 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 chair and ranking minority member jointly 
may appoint members to serve as an investigative subcommittee.
    (ii) The chair 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;
    (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 such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner believes 
the information is submitted in good faith and warrants the 
review and consideration of the committee; or
    (C) upon receipt of a report regarding a referral from the 
Office of Congressional Ethics.
    If a complaint is not disposed of within the applicable 
periods set forth in the rules of the Committee on Ethics, the 
chair 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 chair 
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 seek disqualification 
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 chair 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 Ethics 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 Ethics 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 Ethics, 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 Ethics, 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 Ethics 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 Ethics, 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 Ethics.

Committee agendas

    (f) The committee shall adopt rules providing that the 
chair 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 the employment or duties 
with the committee of such individual without specific prior 
approval from the chair 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 
chair and ranking minority member each may appoint one 
individual as a shared staff member from the respective 
personal staff of the chair or ranking minority member to 
perform service for the committee. Such shared staff may assist 
the chair or ranking minority member on any subcommittee on 
which the chair or ranking minority member 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 chair 
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 chair 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 chair and ranking minority member regarding properly filed 
        complaints

    (k)(1) The committee shall adopt rules providing that 
whenever the chair 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 
chair 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 chair 
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 chair and ranking minority member regarding information not 
        constituting a complaint

    (l) The committee shall adopt rules providing that whenever 
the chair 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 
chair 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 chair shall designate 
one member of a subcommittee to serve as chair and the ranking 
minority member shall designate one member of the subcommittee 
to serve as the ranking minority member; and
    (3) the chair 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 the counsel of the 
respondent 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 the counsel of 
the respondent 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 the counsel of the 
respondent 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 chair 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 chair and ranking 
minority member of the subcommittee, and the outside counsel, 
if any;
    (7) statements or information derived solely from a 
respondent or the counsel of a respondent 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 the respondent 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 
the 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(h)

    (h) All the provisions of this clause [the gift rule] shall 
be interpreted and enforced solely by the Committee on Ethics. 
The Committee on Ethics is authorized to issue guidance on any 
matter contained in this clause.
    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, officers, and employees, the Committee is both the 
``supervising ethics office'' with regard to financial 
disclosure under the Ethics in Government Act (5 U.S.C. app. 4 
Sec. 101 et seq.) and the ``employing agency'' for certain 
purposes under the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 7342). Finally, the outside employment and earned income 
limitations are administered by the Committee with respect to 
House Members, officers, and employees (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 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;
           Drafting responses to specific advisory 
        opinion requests received from House Members, officers, 
        and employees, and submitting them to the Chairman and 
        Ranking Member for review and approval;
           Drafting advisory memoranda on the ethics 
        rules for general distribution to House Members, 
        officers, and employees, and submitting them to the 
        Chairman and Ranking Member, or the full Committee, for 
        review and approval; and
           Developing and conducting educational 
        briefings for House Members, officers, and employees.
    The duties of the Office of Advice and Education are also 
addressed in Committee Rule 3, which sets out additional 
requirements and procedures for the issuance of Committee 
advisory opinions.
    Under Committee Rule 3(j), the Committee will keep 
confidential any request for advice from a Member, officer, or 
employee, as well as any response to such a request. As a 
further inducement to House Members, officers, and employees 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(k) 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. In addition, the Committee understands that federal 
courts may consider the good faith reliance of a House Member, 
officer, or employee on written Committee advice as a defense 
to Justice Department prosecution regarding certain statutory 
violations.
    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 112th Congress are set forth below. In addition, on a daily 
basis Committee staff attorneys provided informal advice in 
response to inquiries received from Members, staff persons, and 
third parties in telephone calls and e-mails directed to the 
Committee office, as well as in person. During the 112th 
Congress, Committee attorneys responded to more than 40,000 
phone calls and e-mail messages seeking advice, and 
participated in many informal meetings with Members, House 
staff, or outside individuals or groups regarding specific 
ethics matters.

                              PUBLICATIONS

    The Committee's major publication is the House Ethics 
Manual, an updated version of which was issued in March 2008. 
The Manual provides detailed explanations of all aspects of the 
ethics rules and statutes applicable to House Members, 
officers, and employees. Topics covered by the Manual include 
the acceptance of gifts or travel, campaign activity, casework, 
outside employment, and involvement with official and outside 
organizations. The House Ethics Manual is posted in a 
searchable format on the Committee's Web site, http://
ethics.house.gov.
    The Committee updates and expands upon the materials in the 
Manual, as well as highlights matters of particular concern, 
through the issuance of general advisory memoranda to all House 
Members, officers, and employees. The memoranda issued during 
the 112th Congress (other than ones announcing training dates) 
were as follows:
           New Employee Mandatory Ethics Training 
        within 60 days (January 25, 2011);
           The 2011 Outside Earned Income Limit and 
        Salaries Triggering the Financial Disclosure 
        Requirement and Post-Employment Restrictions Applicable 
        to House Officers and Employees (February 5, 2011);
           Calendar Year 2010 Financial Disclosure 
        Statements (April 6, 2011);
           Committee on Ethics and Committee on House 
        Administration Joint Guidance Regarding Redistricting 
        (September 16, 2011);
           Rules Regarding Personal Financial 
        Transactions (November 29, 2011);
           Holiday Guidance on the Gift Rule (December 
        9, 2011);
           Revised Legal Expense Fund Regulations 
        (December 20, 2011);
           Member Participation in Certain Events 
        Taking Place During a National Political Convention 
        (January 24, 2012);
           The 2012 Outside Earned Income Limit and 
        Salaries Triggering the Financial Disclosure 
        Requirement and Post-Employment Restrictions Applicable 
        to House Officers and Employees (January 30, 2012);
           Change in Rules Regarding Providing a 
        Hyperlink from Campaign Internet Sites to Official 
        Internet Sites (March 9, 2012);
           New Ethics Requirements Resulting from the 
        STOCK Act (April 4, 2012);
           Gift Rules Applicable to National Political 
        Conventions (June 1, 2012);
           Periodic Reporting of Personal Financial 
        Transactions Pursuant to the STOCK Act (June 7, 2012) 
        superseded by revised memorandum following amendment of 
        the STOCK Act (August 17, 2012);
           Purchase of Tablet Computers with Principal 
        Campaign Committee Funds (September 18, 2012);
           REMINDER: Spouse PTR Transaction Reporting 
        Begins September 30, 2012 (September 28, 2012);
           Reminder About the 2012 Annual Ethics 
        Training Requirement (November 21, 2012);
           Negotiations for Future Employment and 
        Restrictions on Post-Employment for House Members and 
        Officers (November 26, 2012);
           Negotiations for Future Employment and 
        Restrictions on Post-Employment for House Staff 
        (November 26, 2012);
           Holiday Guidance on the Gift Rule (November 
        27, 2012);
           Member Swearing-in and Inauguration Day 
        Receptions, and Attendance at Inaugural-Related Events 
        (December 4, 2012);
           Rules Prohibiting Use of One's Official 
        Position for Personal Gain (December 27, 2012); and
           Revised Travel Regulations (December 27, 
        2012)
    A copy of each of these advisory memoranda is included as 
Appendix I to this Report.
    In addition to the advisory memoranda listed above, the 
Committee issued an updated version of its summary memorandum, 
Highlights of the House Ethics Rules, in March 2011 and January 
2012. The Committee released 46 public statements regarding 
various matters.
    In order to make access to all Committee materials easier 
and more transparent, the Committee launched a new Web site in 
the fall of 2011, featuring easily accessible guidance, forms, 
and historical documents. Significantly, the Committee has now, 
for the first time, made all conduct reports dating back to the 
Committee's founding in 1967 available to the public in 
electronic form. All of these reports are now available in 
searchable format on the Committee's Web site. In addition, the 
Committee is currently working to update the summary of all 
reported matters of conduct in the entire history of the House 
of Representatives. Currently that chart ends with 2004. With 
the launch of the new Web site, the Committee has listened to 
transparency suggestions and concerns from numerous House and 
outside sources and continues to make improvements to the 
usefulness of its Web site.
    Copies of all current Committee publications are available 
from the Committee's office, and their text is posted on the 
Committee's Web site. Finally, with this report and the annual 
report published by the Committee in early 2012, the Committee 
has sought to provide as much transparency as is appropriate. 
In addition to the many numbers referred to throughout this 
report, the Committee annually publishes the following summary 
chart in the interest of transparency.


                            ETHICS TRAINING

    Clause 3(a)(6) of House Rule XI, which originated in the 
110th Congress, requires each House employee to complete ethics 
training each calendar year, pursuant to guidelines to be 
issued by the Committee. The House rules and Committee's 
guidelines require each House employee to complete one hour of 
ethics training each calendar year. The guidelines also require 
all House employees who file an annual Financial Disclosure 
Statement to complete an additional hour of training once each 
Congress on issues primarily of interest to senior staff. Rule 
XI requires staff newly hired by the House to complete their 
training within 60 days of the commencement of their employment 
with the House.
    Pursuant to its obligations under Rule XI, the Committee 
held 51 ethics training sessions during 2011 and 42 during 
2012. During the 112th Congress, all employees other than new 
employees were permitted to fulfill their training requirement 
either through attending a training session in person or by 
viewing an on-line presentation. The training sessions for new 
employees provided a general summary of the House ethics rules 
in all areas, such as gifts, travel, campaign activity, 
casework, involvement with outside entities, and outside 
employment. The live and on-line sessions for existing House 
employees covered specific topics, such as gifts and travel or 
campaign work, on a more in-depth basis. The Committee also had 
several different options that staff could use to fulfill their 
requirement of one additional hour of training. The on-line 
training provided a general overview of ethics rules of 
particular interest to senior staff. The live training sessions 
focused in depth on a single topic, of import for senior staff, 
such as the rules on completing a Financial Disclosure 
Statement, the post-employment restrictions, or STOCK Act 
filings.
    In 2011, the Committee trained more than 2,400 employees in 
person at live ethics briefings, and more than 7,500 used one 
of the on-line training options. During 2012, the Committee 
trained more than 1,600 employees in person at live ethics 
briefings, and more than 6,500 through one of the on-line 
training options. The total number of employees who completed 
ethics training for 2012 will be determined after January 31, 
2013, the date that House Rule XI established as the deadline 
for employees to certify completion of the ethics training 
requirement for 2012.
    In addition to the training required under House Rule XI, 
the Committee also provided training in several other contexts. 
The Committee made three presentations to the Members-elect of 
the 113th Congress during New Member Orientation for the 
members-elect of the 113th Congress. The Committee also led a 
briefing for the spouses of the Members-elect of the 113th 
Congress on the ethics rules applicable to them as 
congressional spouses. In addition, the Committee met with 
numerous departing Members and staff to counsel them on the 
ethics rules related to their transition to private life and 
the post-employment restrictions. The Committee also provided 
training open to all House Members, officers, and employees on 
the financial disclosure rules, which is discussed further in 
Section III. Finally, together with the Committee on House 
Administration, the Committee participated in two general 
briefings, one in 2011 and one in 2012, on the rules related to 
Member participation in the Congressional Art Competition.
    Committee staff also participated in approximately 10 
briefings sponsored by or held for the members of outside 
organizations. The Committee also had an information booth at 
the 2011 House Services Fair held by the Chief Administrative 
Officer. In addition, Committee staff led approximately twelve 
briefings for visiting international dignitaries from a variety 
of countries, including Indonesia, China, Moldova, and Romania.
    The Committee will continue this outreach activity in the 
113th Congress.

                        ADVISORY OPINION LETTERS

    The Committee's Office of Advice and Education, under the 
direction and supervision of the Committee's Chairman and 
Ranking Member, prepared and issued more than 900 private 
advisory opinions during the 112th Congress, 535 in 2011 and 
more than 375 in 2012. Opinions issued by the Committee in the 
112th Congress addressed a wide range of subjects, including 
various provisions of the gift rule, 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.

                        TRAVEL APPROVAL LETTERS

    As discussed above, House Rule XXV, clause 5(d)(2), which 
was enacted at the start of the 110th Congress, charged each 
House Member or employee with obtaining approval of the 
Committee prior to undertaking any travel paid for by a private 
source on matters connected to the individual's House duties. 
Under the travel approval process established by the Committee 
to implement this rule, the Committee reviewed more than 2,000 
requests, and issued letters approving more than 1,760 requests 
for travel in 2011. In 2012, the Committee reviewed more than 
1,500 requests and issued letters approving more than 1,300 
requests for travel. The Committee also reviewed the post-
travel disclosure forms filed by the traveler on each approved 
trip pursuant to House Rule XXV, clause 5(b)(1)(A)(ii), 
requesting amendments or other remedial action by the traveler 
when deemed necessary.
    House Rule XXV, clause 5(i), charges the Committee with 
undertaking an annual review of its guidelines and regulations 
regarding privately-funded, officially-connected travel by 
House Members, officers, and employees. In 2011, the Committee 
carried over a bipartisan travel working group to assess and 
make recommendations regarding its process for the review and 
approval of such travel. Committee members Representatives 
Charles Dent and Donna F. Edwards comprised the working group. 
As a result of the efforts of the working group, the Committee 
adopted comprehensive revised travel regulations for privately-
sponsored, officially-connected travel which were released as a 
general advisory on December 27, 2012. The regulations are 
included in this report in Appendix I.

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

    Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA), 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. By May 15 of each year, these 
``covered individuals'' are required to file a statement that 
provides information for the preceding calendar year. On April 
4, 2012, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK 
Act) was enacted. Among other provisions, the STOCK Act amended 
the EIGA to add a requirement that financial disclosure filers 
must report certain securities transactions over $1,000 within 
45 days of the transaction. The Committee has termed these 
interim reports ``Periodic Transaction Reports'' or ``PTRs.''
    The EIGA 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 
individuals. In this role, the Committee interprets the EIGA, 
establishes policy, issues instructions, and designs the 
Financial Disclosure Statements (FD Statements or Statements) 
and PTRs to be filed by Members, officers, legislative branch 
employees, and candidates for the House. After Statements and 
PTRs are filed with the Clerk of the House, they are forwarded 
to the Committee to be reviewed for compliance with the law. 
For several months each year, accountants from the General 
Accounting Office assist the Committee in its review efforts. 
As noted above, in the 112th Congress the Committee received 
nearly 500 PTRs filed by House Members, officers, and senior 
staff containing thousands of transactions. The Committee 
anticipates this figure will increase substantially in the 
future because the requirement for filing PTRs was only in 
effect for the second half of 2012, and the inclusion of 
spouses' and independent children's transactions was only 
required for approximately the last quarter of 2012.
    Each year the Committee publishes two detailed financial 
disclosure instruction booklets, one for current Members and 
employees, and one for candidates and new employees. The 
Committee also published a detailed advisory memorandum 
providing instructions for completion of a PTR, which was 
updated following amendment of the Act in August 2012. The 
appropriate FD instruction booklet and the PTR advisory 
memorandum are sent to each person who is required to file an 
FD Statement and PTRs with the Clerk of the House pursuant to 
House payroll data. Candidates who are required to file FD 
statements, as determined by records from the Federal Election 
Commission, are also sent the appropriate FD instructions and 
forms.
    The Committee also engaged in substantial training efforts 
regarding completing FD Statements and PTRs. Prior to the May 
15 filing date, the Committee held six briefings in 2011, three 
for Members and three for officers and employees, and five 
briefings in 2012, one for Members, one for Members' spouses, 
and three for officers and employees, on the financial 
disclosure requirements. In 2012, the Committee held six 
briefings on the new PTR requirement, two for Members and four 
for officers and employees. The Committee issued three advisory 
memoranda providing guidance to the House community on these 
new requirements, all of which are available on the Committee's 
Web site and in Appendix I to this Report. The Committee staff 
also met on an individual basis with any Member who had 
questions regarding the preparation of the Member's Statement 
or PTR and who requested additional guidance. In addition, 
Committee staff responded, by telephone, e-mail, or in person, 
to numerous questions from filers on the financial disclosure 
filing requirements. Upon request, Committee staff reviewed 
Statements and PTRs in draft form, prior to being formally 
filed with the Clerk, for compliance with the disclosure 
requirements in order to reduce errors and the need for 
amendments. The Committee encourages all financial disclosure 
filers to avail themselves of this service for their future 
filings.
    For calendar years 2011 and 2012 (as of December 20, 2012), 
the Legislative Resource Center of the Clerk's office referred 
a total of 6,170 Financial Disclosure Statements to the 
Committee for review under the statute. Of those, 4,183 were 
Statements filed by current or new House Members or employees, 
712 were filed by departing House Members or employees, and 
1,275 were Statements filed by candidates for the House. Where 
the Committee's review indicated that a filed Statement had a 
deficiency, such as a failure to include required information, 
the Committee requested an amendment from the filer. Such 
amendments are routine and, without evidence of a knowing or 
willful violation, the Committee will usually take no further 
action.
    The Committee also followed up with filers whose Statements 
indicated non-compliance with applicable law, such as the 
outside employment and outside earned income limitations. Where 
the Committee found that a Member or staff person had received 
income in violation of any of these limitations, the Committee 
determined the appropriate remedy for the violation, which in 
some circumstances was a requirement that the individual repay 
the amount that was improperly received.
    For calendar year 2012 (as of December 20, 2012), the 
Legislative Resource Center of the Clerk's office referred a 
total of 477 PTRs to the Committee for review under the statute 
beginning on the effective date of the PTR requirement, July 3, 
2012. Of those, 141 were PTRs filed by Members and 336 were 
PTRs filed by House employees. The Committee has continued to 
receive a large number of year-end PTRs since the numbers above 
were compiled.
    Like FD Statements, where the Committee's review indicated 
that a filed PTR had a deficiency, such as a failure to include 
required information, the Committee requested an amendment from 
the filer. The Committee also followed up with filers whose 
PTRs indicated non-compliance with applicable law, such as 
impermissible participation in an Initial Public Offering or 
late filing of the PTR. Where the Committee found that a Member 
or staff person had violated a provision of the STOCK Act, the 
Committee determined the appropriate remedy for the violation.

                          IV. Committee Rules

    On February 15, 2011, the Committee met and adopted the 
initial set of Committee rules for the 112th Congress. The 
substance of the initial set of Committee rules was largely 
identical to those adopted for the 111th Congress, except they 
were changed to reflect the Committee's new name, in 
conformance with changes that had been made to the House rules 
for the 112th Congress. Subsequently, on May 18, 2012, the 
Committee met and adopted a revised set of Committee rules. The 
May 2012 revisions amended Committee Rule 4 to authorize the 
Committee to review periodic transaction reports as required by 
the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, and 
amended Committee Rule 9 to change the quorum requirements of 
the Committee for the purpose of taking testimony or receiving 
evidence, from six to two Members. Copies of the February 2011 
and amended May 2012 Committee rules are included as Appendices 
II and III, respectively, to this Report.
    On July 7, 2011, the Committee formed a working group to 
assess the Committee's rules and procedures. The rules working 
group issued a report to the Committee on November 15, 2012. 
The rules working group's report suggested various changes to 
the Committee rules, primarily focused on the Committee's 
investigative and adjudicative procedures. As a result of the 
efforts of the working group, the Committee met and adopted new 
Committee rules on December 19, 2012. Numerous changes were 
made to the Committee's investigative rules at that time, 
including changes to Committee rules 17A, 18, 19 and 23. These 
changes were made either to bring the Committee rules in 
greater conformity with the House Rules, or to make the 
Committee's adjudicatory process more fair and efficient. A 
copy of the amended December 2012 Committee Rules are included 
as Appendix IV to this Report.

                           V. Investigations

    Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution grants each 
chamber of Congress the power to ``punish its Members for 
disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, 
expel a Member.'' The Committee is designated by House Rule as 
the body which conducts the investigative and adjudicatory 
functions which usually precede a vote by the full House 
regarding such punishment or expulsion. House Rule XI, Clause 
3, as well as Committee Rules 13 through 28, describe specific 
guidelines and procedures for the exercise of that authority.
    Beginning prior to the current Congress, allegations had 
been raised that the public caseload of the Committee 
represented a racial disparity that was not in line with the 
general population of the House of Representatives. In the 
112th Congress, under the leadership of the Chairman and 
Ranking Member, the Committee sought to take those allegations 
seriously, through study and discussion. The Committee began 
with the understanding that the public caseload, most of which 
had begun in prior congresses, consisted almost entirely of 
matters required to be made public as they were referred by the 
Office of Congressional Ethics. However, the Committee did not 
rest on that fact alone. In fact, many investigative matters 
pending before the Committee may not be publicly disclosed. The 
Committee, therefore, considered the broader but necessarily 
confidential caseload, which did not reflect the same alleged 
disparity. The Committee as a whole had several collegial 
discussions and the staff took steps to ensure they are aware 
of the potential for bias, and that they remain vigilant to 
ensure that every case is handled only on the merits and is 
consistent, in relevant ways, with House and Committee 
precedent. No matter these numbers, however, the Chairman, 
Ranking Member, and the entire Committee remained absolutely 
committed to insuring integrity in the Committee's operations 
and fairness to the entire House community.
    The Committee publicly addressed 27 investigative matters 
during the 112th Congress.
    On September 1, 2010, and November 3, 2010, the Committee 
received referrals in three matters from the Office of 
Congressional Ethics (OCE) related to alleged improper 
fundraising activities and the House vote on H.R. 4173, by 
Representatives John Campbell, Tom Price, and Joseph Crowley, 
which was resolved by the Chairman and Ranking Member in the 
112th Congress by releasing a staff report on January 26, 2011.
    On May 18, 2011, the Committee received a referral from the 
OCE related to the alleged receipt of an impermissible gift by 
Representative Jean Schmidt.
    On May 18, 2011, the Committee received a referral from the 
OCE related to the alleged receipt of an improper loan by 
Representative Gregory Meeks.
    On May 18, 2011, the Committee received a referral from the 
OCE related to the alleged receipt of excess outside earned 
income by Michael Collins.
    On May 18, 2011, the Committee received a referral from the 
OCE related to the alleged receipt of excess outside earned 
income by Gregory Hill.
    On July 14, 2011, the Committee voted to reauthorize the 
Investigative Subcommittee for the 112th Congress that had been 
authorized during the 111th Congress in matters related to 
allegations against former Representative Eric Massa.
    On July 20, 2011, the Committee voted to hire outside 
counsel to review, advise, and assist the Committee in the 
matter of Representative Maxine Waters.
    On August 1, 2011, the Committee voted not to establish an 
Investigative Subcommittee with regard to the arrest of 
Representative Luis V. Gutierrez for failing to obey a lawful 
order of a police officer during a protest outside the White 
House.
    On September 8, 2011, the Committee voted not to establish 
an Investigative Subcommittee with regard to the arrest of Todd 
Poole, an employee of the House, for driving while impaired and 
resisting an officer.
    On October 13, 2011, after the withdrawal of a request for 
deferral from the Department of Justice, the Committee voted to 
end the deferral period in the matter of Representative Jesse 
Jackson, Jr., related to allegations that Representative 
Jackson, or an agent of Representative Jackson, may have 
offered to raise funds for then-Illinois Governor Rod 
Blagojevich in return for the appointment of Representative 
Jackson to the Illinois Senate seat vacated by President Barack 
Obama.
    On October 13, 2011, the Committee received a referral from 
the OCE related to allegations of improper contributions to 
Representative Don Young's Legal Expense Fund.
    On October 13, 2011, the Committee received a referral from 
the OCE related to alleged employment discrimination, unwelcome 
sexual advances, and unwelcome sexual conduct by Representative 
Alcee L. Hastings.
    On November 3, 2011, the Committee voted to establish an 
Investigative Subcommittee to investigate the alleged improper 
use of official House resources and personnel for work related 
to campaign activities and other non-official purposes by 
Representative Laura Richardson and two members of her staff.
    On November 8, 2011, the Committee received a referral from 
the OCE related to the alleged failure to report certain 
positions and unearned income on Financial Disclosure 
Statements by Representative Vern Buchanan.
    On February 9, 2012, the Committee received a referral from 
the OCE related to allegations that Representative Vern 
Buchanan attempted to influence the testimony of a witness in a 
proceeding before the Federal Election Commission.
    On February 9, 2012, the Committee received a referral from 
the OCE regarding Representative Shelley Berkley.
    On March 20, 2012, the Committee voted not to establish an 
Investigative Subcommittee with regard to the arrests of four 
Members--Al Green, James P. McGovern, James P. Moran, and John 
W. Olver--for crossing a police line during a protest outside 
of the Embassy of Sudan.
    On April 2, 2012, the Committee received a referral from 
the OCE related to the alleged use of campaign or leadership 
PAC funds for personal use by Representative Robert Andrews.
    On June 28, 2012, the Committee received a referral from 
the OCE related to allegations that Representative Michael G. 
Grimm improperly solicited or received prohibited campaign 
funds, used his official position to obtain campaign 
contributions, and filed false campaign finance reports.
    On August 30, 2012, the Committee received a referral from 
the OCE related to allegations regarding Representative William 
Owens.
    On August 30, 2012, the Committee received a referral from 
the OCE related to allegations regarding Representative Aaron 
Schock.
    On August 30, 2012, the Committee received a referral from 
the OCE related to the alleged use of campaign funds for 
personal use by Representative Silvestre Reyes.
    On November 15, 2012, the Committee voted not to establish 
an Investigative Subcommittee with regard to the arrest of Joy 
Henrichs, an employee of the House, for driving under the 
influence.
    On December 19, 2012, the Committee voted not to establish 
an Investigative Subcommittee with regard a charge filed 
against Representative Tim Ryan, for public intoxication.
    On December 19, 2012, the Committee completed its review of 
allegations related to the ``V.I.P.'' program of the 
Countrywide Financial Corporation (Countrywide).
    These investigative matters are described in more detail 
below. Copies of all of the Committee's public statements 
related to these matters are included as Appendix V to this 
Report.

Representatives John Campbell, Tom Price, and Joseph Crowley (In the 
        Matter of Allegations Relating to Fundraising Activities and 
        the House Vote on H.R. 4173)

    On September 1, 2010, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations of campaign fundraising by Representatives John 
Campbell and Tom Price that was connected to a mark-up and vote 
on financial regulation legislation. As part of the same 
investigation, the OCE referred the matter of Representative 
Joseph Crowley. However, in accordance with H. Res. 895, and 
Committee Rule 17A(i), the OCE waited to make its referral of 
findings until November 3, 2010, after the primary and general 
elections.
    In all three matters, the OCE alleged that the Members' 
fundraising activities near the time that the House voted on 
H.R. 4173 (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 
2009) on December 11, 2009, gave the appearance that special 
treatment or access was provided to campaign donors, or gave 
the appearance that campaign contributions were linked to an 
official act.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\As part of the same investigation, the OCE also recommended for 
dismissal the matters of Representatives Jeb Hensarling, Christopher 
Lee, Frank Lucas and Melvin L. Watt. The Committee took no further 
action in those matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 15, 2010, pursuant to Committee Rules 
17A(b)(1)(A) and 17A(j), the then-Chair and then-Ranking 
Republican Member jointly decided to extend the matter of 
Representatives Campbell, Price, and Crowley.
    On January 26, 2011, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Committee for the 112th Congress issued a public statement and 
released the Report of the Committee's nonpartisan, 
professional staff. The Report concluded there was no violation 
of any House rule, or any law, rule, regulation or other 
standard of conduct by any of the three Members in relation to 
their fundraising and vote on the financial regulation 
legislation nor was there any appearance of impropriety.
    The staff Report based its conclusions on the fact that 
each Member had employed a strict separation between all 
fundraising and legislative activities by hiring professional 
fundraising consultants to manage all aspects of fundraising 
events. These fundraising consultants had no interaction with 
the three Members or their legislative staff on legislative 
activities. The fundraising events were planned several months 
in advance, long before votes on the legislation at issue, and 
invitations to the fundraising events were not restricted to 
individuals associated with a particular industry. Each Member 
held consistent and well-established legislative positions 
regarding H.R. 4173 long before and after any of the 
fundraising events cited in the OCE's Reports and Findings. 
Each Member's official acts relating to H.R. 4173 were based on 
significant legislative concerns, which did not stem from 
requests from campaign donors. The record showed that the 
timing for floor action on H.R. 4173 was in constant flux, and 
was not known with certainty until days before the vote 
occurred on December 11, 2009.
    Accordingly, the Committee's staff concluded that the 
general characteristics of each Member's fundraising events 
exhibited no appearances of special access for attendees to the 
Members in their official capacity and the Members did not 
violate any House rule, or any law, rule, regulation or other 
standard of conduct. In their January 26 statement, the 
Chairman and Ranking Member jointly announced that no further 
actions would be taken.

Representative Jean Schmidt\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Representative Jean Schmidt, H. Rept. 112-195, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. 
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 18, 2011, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations that Representative Jean Schmidt violated House 
Rules by accepting legal services from an outside entity 
without establishing a Legal Expense Fund and failing to report 
the legal services on her Financial Disclosure Statements for 
calendar years 2008 and 2009. The Committee conducted an 
investigation into the matter pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a).
    On July 1, 2011, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Committee jointly decided to extend the Committee's review of 
the OCE referral pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(8)(A), 
and Committee Rules 17A(b)(1)(A) and 17A(c)(1). On August 1, 
2011, following the conclusion of the Committee's review, the 
Committee unanimously voted to release a public Report finding 
that Representative Schmidt did not knowingly violate any 
provision of the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, 
regulation, or other standard of conduct with respect to the 
receipt of gifts. The Committee released its Report and the 
OCE's Report and Findings on August 5, 2011.
    The Committee's Report found that, beginning in spring of 
2009, Representative Schmidt was involved in litigation 
regarding statements made about her by an opponent in her 2008 
re-election campaign. That dispute involved proceedings before 
an Ohio state agency, in Ohio state court, and in federal 
court. According to the OCE referral, Representative Schmidt 
received an impermissible gift from the Turkish Coalition of 
America (TCA) when lawyers provided legal services to 
Representative Schmidt in connection with the three matters and 
then sent bills for their fees to the TCA, which paid those 
bills on an ongoing basis. According to the OCE's referral, 
between 2008 and 2010, TCA paid Representative Schmidt's 
lawyers, who claimed to be acting as the Turkish American Legal 
Defense Fund (TALDF), a project of TCA, approximately $500,000 
for legal services provided to Representative Schmidt.
    The Committee's review of the matter indicated that 
Representative Schmidt did, in fact, receive an impermissible 
gift from TCA as the OCE alleged, and therefore the Committee 
did not dismiss the OCE matter. However, the Committee found 
that Representative Schmidt's lawyers failed to inform her of 
their payment arrangement with TCA, and made false and 
misleading statements to her about their relationship with TCA 
and TALDF. Because Representative Schmidt did not know she was 
receiving a gift from TCA, the Committee determined that no 
sanction was appropriate in the case. However, the Committee 
concluded that the gift was impermissible, and thus required 
Representative Schmidt to disclose and repay the gift.
    Through a letter to Representative Schmidt issued 
contemporaneously with the Committee's Report, the Committee 
directed Representative Schmidt to: (1) ensure that TCA did not 
pay for any further legal services on her behalf; (2) pay from 
a permissible source the lawyers associated with TALDF for all 
legal services they performed to date; (3) amend her 2009 and 
2010 Financial Disclosure Statements to disclose the gifts from 
TCA; and (4) disclose any unpaid legal fees from TCA as 
liabilities on her future Financial Disclosure Statements, 
until the lawyers associated with TALDF have been repaid in 
full.
    On August 16, 2011, after the Committee approved a request 
first submitted in 2009, Representative Schmidt established a 
Legal Expense Fund. On January 3, 2012, Representative Schmidt 
amended her 2009 and 2010 Financial Disclosure Statements. In 
August 2012, Representative Schmidt informed the Committee that 
she ``had raised or personally paid approximately $50,000'' to 
divest herself of the improper gift. Representative Schmidt 
lost her primary election and the Committee will not have 
jurisdiction over her after January 3, 2013.

Representative Gregory W. Meeks\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Representative Gregory Meeks, H. Rept. 112-709, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. 
(2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 18, 2011, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations that Representative Gregory W. Meeks failed to 
disclose a $40,000 loan he received from Edul Ahmad (Ahmad 
loan) and that the Ahmad loan was and should have been 
disclosed as a gift on Representative Meeks' Financial 
Disclosure Statements for 2007, 2008, and 2009.\4\ On July 1, 
2011, the Chairman and Ranking Member announced that they had 
jointly decided to extend the Committee's review of the matter 
for a 45-day period pursuant to Committee Rules 17A(b)(1)(A) 
and 17A(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\In the same Report and Findings, the OCE referred for dismissal 
allegations that Representative Meeks accepted an improper loan from a 
private investment firm (investment firm loan). The OCE based its 
dismissal recommendation on its conclusion that the investment firm 
loan had all the ``normal indicia of a legitimate loan,'' and was thus 
not an improper gift that would violate the House gift rule. On August 
1, 2011, the Committee voted unanimously to dismiss the allegation 
regarding the investment firm loan based on the evidence that the loan 
was commercially reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 1, 2011, the Committee released the OCE's Report 
and Findings and indicated that it would continue to review 
allegations related to the Ahmad loan pursuant to Committee 
Rule 18(a).
    Based on its investigation, the Committee adopted a Report 
on December 18, 2012, which resolves the allegation regarding 
the Ahmad loan. The Committee unanimously determined, based on 
the Committee's review of this allegation, that Representative 
Meeks failed to disclose the Ahmad loan as a liability on his 
2007, 2008, and 2009 Financial Disclosure Statements. The 
Committee found no credible evidence that the errors were 
knowing or willful.
    Although it was not the basis of the OCE referral, the 
Committee also investigated the allegation that the Ahmad loan 
was not accompanied by a written document and stated loan 
terms, and constituted an impermissible gift. The Committee 
determined that the evidence did not establish that the Ahmad 
loan was an impermissible gift.
    Accordingly, on December 18, 2012 the Committee unanimously 
voted to adopt a Report concluding this matter. On December 20, 
2012, the Committee transmitted its Report to the House of 
Representatives.

Michael Collins\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Michael Collins, H. Rept. 112-193, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 18, 2011, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations that, in 2009, Michael Collins, an employee of the 
House, may have received outside income in excess of the 
outside earned income limit applicable to senior staff, and 
that Mr. Collins failed to report outside income on his annual 
Financial Disclosure Statements and federal income tax returns. 
On July 1, 2011, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Committee jointly decided to extend the Committee's review of 
the OCE referral pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(8)(A), 
and Committee Rules 17A(b)(1)(A) and 17A(c)(1).
    The Committee conducted an investigation into the matter 
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a). At the conclusion of its 
investigation, the Committee unanimously determined that Mr. 
Collins failed to report outside income he had earned from 2005 
through 2010 on both his annual Financial Disclosure Statements 
and his federal income taxes for each year. The Committee also 
found that, in 2009, Mr. Collins received an excess of $450 of 
outside earned income that he repaid in 2011 in order to 
disgorge himself of the excess outside earned income. Mr. 
Collins agreed to waive all further procedural steps and rights 
he may have been entitled to under House and Committee Rules 
and to accept certain sanctions and remedies. Mr. Collins 
agreed to accept the findings of the Committee, accept a Letter 
of Reproval from the Committee for his actions, pay a $1,000 
fine, amend his Financial Disclosure Statements and federal 
income tax returns for 2005 through 2010, and pay any taxes or 
penalties owed. Accordingly, on August 1, 2011, the Committee 
unanimously voted to adopt a Report concluding this matter. On 
August 5, 2011, the Committee transmitted its Report to the 
House of Representatives.

Gregory Hill\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Gregory Hill, H. Rept. 112-194, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 18, 2011, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations that, in 2009, Gregory Hill, an employee of the 
House, may have received outside income in excess of the 
outside earned income limit applicable to senior staff, and 
that Mr. Hill failed to properly report the actual amount of 
such income on his 2009 Financial Disclosure Statement. On July 
1, 2011, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee 
jointly decided to extend the Committee's review of the OCE 
referral pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(8)(A), and 
Committee Rules 17A(b)(1)(A) and 17A(c)(1).
    The Committee conducted an investigation into the matter 
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a). At the conclusion of its 
investigation, the Committee unanimously determined that, in 
2009, Mr. Hill did in fact receive outside income that exceeded 
the outside earned income limit for senior staff. However, the 
Committee determined that Mr. Hill had taken several steps to 
ensure that his outside income remained within the authorized 
amount for senior staff. In addition, the Committee found that 
Mr. Hill's outside employer was responsible for the clerical 
error which led to Mr. Hill's receipt of outside income that 
exceeded the limit for senior staff. Further, the Committee 
determined that when Mr. Hill learned of the error, he took 
corrective action and repaid the excess amount. Finally, while 
Mr. Hill did not report the amount actually received in 2009 on 
his 2009 Financial Disclosure Statement, the Committee found 
that he relied upon information provided by the outside 
employer, including official wage and earnings statements to 
complete his Financial Disclosure Statement and that the 
information supplied to him was incorrect without his 
knowledge. The Committee found that because Mr. Hill had repaid 
the excess amount, making the total received for 2009 below the 
limit, no further action was necessary. Accordingly, on August 
1, 2011, the Committee unanimously voted to adopt a Report 
concluding this matter. On August 5, 2011, the Committee 
transmitted its Report to the House of Representatives.

Matters related to allegations against former Representative Eric Massa

    On July 14, 2011, the Committee voted to re-authorize an 
Investigative Subcommittee for the 112th Congress that had been 
previously authorized during the 111th Congress for the matter 
involving former Representative Eric Massa. The Investigative 
Subcommittee was again charged with conducting a full and 
complete inquiry into whether any Member, officer, or employee, 
in the performance of the duties or the discharge of the 
responsibilities of such individual: (1) had personal knowledge 
of actual or alleged conduct by Representative Massa that 
violated a law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct 
applicable to his conduct in the performance of his duties; (2) 
failed properly to report or fully disclose any such actual or 
alleged conduct on the part of Representative Massa; (3) had a 
duty to pursue or call attention to such allegations of 
misconduct; or (4) misappropriated, or otherwise fraudulently 
or improperly distributed or received, monies or other 
payments, all of the foregoing in violation of any law, rule, 
regulation or other standard of conduct.
    Each of the Members who had initially served on the 
Investigative Subcommittee in the 111th Congress was 
reappointed in the 112th Congress. Representative Jo Bonner, 
the Chairman of the Committee on Ethics, served as Chairman of 
the Investigative Subcommittee. Representative Zoe Lofgren 
served as the Ranking Member. The other two members of the 
subcommittee were Representative Michael Conaway and 
Representative Ben Chandler.
    As of the conclusion of the 112th Congress, the 
Investigative Subcommittee had not completed its investigation 
into the matter under its jurisdiction.

Representative Maxine Waters\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative Maxine 
Waters, H. Rept. 112-690, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 24, 2009, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations that Representative Maxine Waters violated House 
Rule XXIII, clause 3 and House precedent regarding conflicts of 
interest when she called the then-Treasury Secretary and 
requested that Treasury Department officials meet with 
representatives from the National Bankers Association. The OCE 
alleged that this meeting focused on a single bank--OneUnited 
Bank (OneUnited)--in which Representative Waters' husband held 
stock and for which he had previously served on the Board of 
Directors.
    On October 29, 2009, following an investigation by 
Committee staff pursuant to authority granted by the Chairman 
and Ranking Member under Committee Rule 18(a), the Committee 
established an Investigative Subcommittee (ISC). During the 
course of the investigation, the ISC (in the 111th Congress) 
issued 11 subpoenas, interviewed 13 witnesses, and reviewed 
more than 1,300 pages of documents.
    In the spring of 2010, the ISC came to an agreement to 
release a Report critical of some conduct in the matter, but 
recommending no further action or sanction. However, the former 
Chief Counsel and Staff Director advised the Committee that the 
rules did not permit an ISC to issue a Report that was critical 
of a Member without adopting a Statement of Alleged Violation 
(SAV) and providing the Respondent with the opportunity for an 
adjudicatory hearing under the rules for an Adjudicatory 
Subcommittee.
    Subsequently, on June 15, 2010, the ISC adopted an SAV 
alleging three counts of misconduct: violations of clauses 1 
and 3 of the House Code of Official Conduct (House Rule XXIII), 
and paragraph 5 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service. 
The ISC transmitted the SAV to the full Committee on July 28, 
2010. Shortly thereafter, the Committee established an 
Adjudicatory Subcommittee (ASC) to conduct a hearing on the 
SAV.
    On October 7, 2010, the Chair of the ASC scheduled a 
hearing in Representative Waters' matter for November 21, 2010. 
On or about October 12, 2010, the Committee postponed the date 
of the hearing by one week, until November 29, 2010.
    On November 15, 2010, two weeks before the hearing was to 
occur, staff submitted a formal motion to the ASC to recommit 
the matter to the ISC, on the grounds that staff had obtained 
new evidence in the matter. On November 18, 2010, the ASC voted 
to recommit the matter to the ISC.
    By the end of the 111th Congress, the Committee recognized 
the need to hire Outside Counsel to complete this matter. 
However, the need to reconstitute the Committee's staff in the 
112th Congress delayed the resolution of Representative Waters' 
matter by, among other things, delaying the retention of 
Outside Counsel. The Committee ultimately retained attorney 
Billy Martin to serve as Outside Counsel on July 20, 2011.
    The Committee's first charge to Outside Counsel was a 
thorough review of serious allegations regarding the 
Committee's own conduct in this matter. Those allegations 
included charges that the Committee and its staff had violated 
Representative Waters' due process rights in several respects 
during the course of the Committee's investigation. Mr. Martin 
thus conducted an extensive review of allegations raised by 
both Representative Waters and the Committee itself, which 
included a document review comprising more than 100,000 pages, 
interviews of 26 witnesses, including all Members of the 
Committee from the 111th Congress as well as all current and 
former staff with knowledge of the relevant issues, and a 
significant and thorough analysis of the relevant legal issues. 
The vast majority of this review took place between July 2011 
and the end of 2011. However, one significant witness, refused 
to testify without the issuance of a subpoena, and then 
indicated an intention to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege 
when the subpoena was issued. The witness did ultimately 
provide testimony, but the witness's recalcitrance delayed the 
completion of the first phase of Outside Counsel's review by at 
least four months.
    On February 17, 2012, based on the advice received from 
Outside Counsel, six Members of the Committee for the 112th 
Congress--the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and all current 
Committee Members who also served on the Committee during the 
111th Congress--voluntarily requested recusal from this matter. 
Further, all current Committee staff who were involved in 
Representative Waters' matter in the 111th Congress were 
recused from the matter.
    Outside Counsel did not find any evidence of wrongdoing by 
any Member of the Committee, and no Member requested recusal 
because of any such wrongdoing. Instead, the Members requested 
recusal because:
          (1) They believed that, out of an abundance of 
        caution and to avoid even an appearance of unfairness, 
        their voluntary recusal would eliminate the possibility 
        of questions being raised as to the partiality or bias 
        of Committee Members considering this matter;
          (2) They wanted to assure the public, the House, and 
        Representative Waters that this investigation was 
        continuing in a fair and unbiased manner; and
          (3) They wanted to move this matter forward in a 
        manner that supported the greatest public confidence in 
        the ultimate conclusions of this Committee.
    On February 17, 2012, the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, with input from the Minority Leader, appointed 
six substitute Committee members who were charged solely with 
resolving Representative Waters' matter. The six new Committee 
members, Representatives Bob Goodlatte, Mike Simpson, Steve 
LaTourette, Shelley Moore Capito, Tim Griffin, and John 
Sarbanes, joined the four members of the standing Committee who 
had no role in the investigation of Representative Waters' 
matter in the 111th Congress. These 10 Members were referred to 
as the ``Waters Committee.'' Representative Goodlatte served as 
the acting Chairman and Representative John Yarmuth, of the 
standing Committee, served as the acting Ranking Member.
    Upon completion of Outside Counsel's due process review, 
Outside Counsel submitted his conclusions from that review to 
the Waters Committee in May 2012. On June 6, 2012, the Acting 
Chairman and Acting Ranking Member of the Waters Committee 
wrote to Representative Waters, notifying her that upon the 
advice of Outside Counsel, the Waters Committee had unanimously 
found that none of the individual allegations raised regarding 
the conduct of Committee Members or staff, nor the totality of 
the circumstances of those claims, amounted to a deprivation of 
her due process rights.
    Only upon conclusion of the first phase of the review was 
Outside Counsel authorized to conduct a de novo review of the 
actual substance of the allegations against Representative 
Waters. This review was similarly thorough; Outside Counsel 
reviewed all prior ISC and staff interview transcripts and all 
documents produced to the Committee, and also re-interviewed 
several key witnesses. Members of the Waters Committee also 
reviewed many of these ISC and staff interview transcripts and 
key documents. Finally, after providing Representative Waters 
and her chief of staff the opportunity to appear before the 
Committee, the Waters Committee held a public hearing on 
September 21, 2012. The Committee heard Representative Waters' 
chief of staff's testimony and fully considered it.
    Based on the work of Outside Counsel, the Waters 
Committee's own evaluation of that work, and Representative 
Waters' chief of staff's testimony at the public hearing, the 
Waters Committee made their own determinations with respect to 
Representative Waters and her chief of staff.
    With respect to Representative Waters' actions to set up a 
meeting between the then-Treasury Secretary and representatives 
from the National Bankers Association--who were also associated 
with OneUnited--Outside Counsel concluded that Representative 
Waters reasonably believed, at the time she requested the 
meeting, that the attendees would be speaking on behalf of 
minority banks generally. While it appears that all of the 
minority bankers who attended the meeting were associated with 
OneUnited, and that OneUnited was alone in requesting 
substantial financial assistance from the Treasury Department 
at the meeting, the record indicates that Representative Waters 
did not have reason to know of either of these facts when she 
arranged the meeting. Accordingly, Outside Counsel recommended 
that the Waters Committee find that Representative Waters 
reasonably believed she was arranging the Treasury meeting on 
behalf of a broad class of minority banks, and that in doing so 
she did not violate any House rule, law, regulation, or other 
applicable standard of conduct. The Waters Committee 
unanimously agreed with Outside Counsel's recommendation.
    Outside Counsel also reviewed allegations that 
Representative Waters' chief of staff took steps to assist 
OneUnited after Representative Waters realized that the bank 
made a request for federal financial assistance from the 
Treasury Department and that, due to her significant financial 
interest in OneUnited, she had a conflict of interest regarding 
any efforts to provide specific financial assistance to 
OneUnited. Outside Counsel concurred in Representative Waters' 
determination that she had a conflict of interest with respect 
to OneUnited's request for specific financial assistance. 
Outside Counsel also recognized that the House Rules prohibit 
Members from doing anything through staff that the Rules 
prohibit them from doing directly. Further, longstanding 
Committee precedent holds Members responsible for the actions 
of their staff, when those actions are within the scope of the 
staff's official duties. Thus, Outside Counsel believed that if 
Representative Waters' chief of staff knowingly ignored 
Representative Waters' conflict of interest--after the conflict 
became clear--and facilitated OneUnited's request for federal 
financial assistance, Representative Waters could be 
responsible for violating House rules.
    However, Outside Counsel recommended that the Committee 
find that the evidence did not establish that Representative 
Waters violated House Rules. As Outside Counsel's Report 
detailed, Representative Waters appeared to have recognized and 
made efforts to avoid a conflict of interest with respect to 
OneUnited. Accordingly, Outside Counsel recommended that the 
Waters Committee find that Representative Waters did not 
violate House Rules by failing to exercise adequate oversight 
of her chief of staff with respect to his work on behalf of 
OneUnited. The Waters Committee unanimously concurred with this 
conclusion.
    Outside Counsel also analyzed the conduct of Representative 
Waters' chief of staff, who is also her grandson. Outside 
Counsel considered evidence that Representative Waters told her 
chief of staff of her conflict of interest with respect to 
OneUnited prior to September 19, 2008, the date on which the 
chief of staff sent the first of two emails that were 
unambiguously intended to assist OneUnited specifically. 
Although Outside Counsel concluded that the evidence did not 
establish, to a clear and convincing level, that Representative 
Waters' chief of staff was directed not to work on OneUnited 
matters before September 19, 2008, Outside Counsel believed 
that there was evidence to support that finding, and informed 
the Waters Committee that, based on its own weighing of the 
evidence, the Waters Committee could reasonably make that 
determination.
    Outside Counsel also considered evidence, including 
Representative Waters' own testimony, that suggested that 
Representative Waters' chief of staff knew or should have 
known--regardless of how and when Representative Waters 
instructed her chief of staff not to work on OneUnited 
matters--that Representative Waters had a significant financial 
interest in, and thus a potential conflict of interest with 
respect to, OneUnited. Outside Counsel recognized this 
evidence, but recommended that the record, standing alone, did 
not establish the conclusion to a clear and convincing 
standard. Outside Counsel thus deferred to the Waters Committee 
to weigh the credibility of the chief of staff's claimed 
ignorance of Representative Waters' financial interest in 
OneUnited, in light of the evidence to the contrary. The Waters 
Committee ultimately found that the totality of the evidence 
supported the conclusion that the chief of staff knew or should 
have known of Representative Waters' financial interest in 
OneUnited. Thus, the Waters Committee found that the chief of 
staff knew or should have known that Representative Waters had 
a conflict of interest with respect to specific actions to 
assist OneUnited, regardless of how and when Representative 
Waters informed him that she believed such a conflict existed.
    Based on the foregoing findings, the Waters Committee voted 
unanimously to close its investigation regarding Representative 
Waters. However, the Waters Committee found that Representative 
Waters' chief of staff knew or should have known of 
Representative Waters' financial interest in OneUnited and her 
conflict of interest in taking official action on the bank's 
behalf alone, and that the chief of staff thus violated House 
rules by taking specific actions that would accrue to the 
distinct benefit of OneUnited. Accordingly, the Committee 
unanimously voted to issue a Letter of Reproval to 
Representative Waters' chief of staff for his conduct. On 
September 25, 2012, the Waters Committee issued its Report in 
the matter of Representative Waters, which included the final 
Report of Outside Counsel.

Representative Luis V. Gutierrez\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, H. Rept. 112-192, 112th Cong. 1st 
Sess. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In accordance with the requirements of H. Res. 451, H. Res. 
5, Section 4(d) and Committee Rule 18(e)(2), the Committee 
convened on August 1, 2011, to consider the arrest of 
Representative Luis V. Gutierrez for failure to obey a lawful 
order from a police officer during a protest outside the White 
House on July 26, 2011. Representative Gutierrez paid a $100 
fine and was released following his arrest. Payment of the fine 
ended legal proceedings in the District of Columbia with regard 
to the arrest.
    After reviewing and considering this matter, the Committee 
voted against empanelling an Investigative Subcommittee related 
to the conduct of Representative Gutierrez. In reaching this 
decision, the Committee considered the scope and nature of the 
violation, and determined it to be one for which review by an 
Investigative Subcommittee was not required. On August 5, 2011, 
the Committee submitted a Report to the House of 
Representatives describing the facts and its findings regarding 
this matter.

Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr.

    On August 6, 2009, the OCE referred to the Committee 
allegations regarding Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. 
Pursuant to a request by the Department of Justice, the 
Committee voted on September 15, 2009, to defer investigation 
of the matter. On October 13, 2011, the Department informed the 
Committee that it would not request any further deferral of the 
Committee's investigation regarding Representative Jackson. The 
Committee then voted to end the deferral period on October 13, 
2011. On October 18, 2011, the Chairman and Ranking Member 
jointly decided to extend the matter of Representative Jackson 
for a 45-day period pursuant to Committee Rules 17A(b)(1)(A) 
and l7A(c)(1). On December 2, 2011, the Chairman and Ranking 
Member released a public statement that, pursuant to Committee 
Rule 18(a), the Committee would continue to review the matter. 
On that same date, pursuant to Committee Rule 17A(c)(2), the 
Committee published OCE's Report and Findings relating to 
allegations against Representative Jackson.
    Representative Jackson resigned from the House on November 
21, 2012, and the Committee no longer has jurisdiction over 
him. As of that date the Committee had not completed its 
investigation into this matter.

Todd Poole\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Todd Poole, H. Rept. 112-
203, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In accordance with the requirements of Committee Rule 
18(e)(2), the Committee convened on September 8, 2011, to 
consider the arrest of Todd Poole, an employee of the House, on 
August 11, 2011, in North Carolina for driving while impaired 
and resisting an officer. After reviewing and considering this 
matter, the Committee voted against empanelling an 
Investigative Subcommittee. In reaching this decision, the 
Committee considered the scope and nature of the violation, and 
determined it to be one for which review by an Investigative 
Subcommittee was not required. On September 9, 2011, the 
Committee submitted a Report to the House of Representatives 
describing the facts and its findings regarding this matter.

Representative Don Young\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Representative Don Young, H. Rept. 112-336, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. 
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On June 23, 2011, the OCE commenced a preliminary review of 
allegations that Representative Don Young had accepted 
contributions to his Legal Expense Fund (LEF) in excess of the 
limits established by applicable rules. Pursuant to its 
organizing resolution, the OCE was required to notify both 
Representative Young and the Committee that it had begun a 
preliminary review. In a letter dated July 6, 2011, 
Representative Young sought guidance from the Committee related 
to twelve $5,000 contributions--the maximum contribution 
permitted--made to his LEF by twelve limited liability 
corporations (LLCs) located in Louisiana. Representative Young 
indicated that, prior to accepting the contributions, his 
office sought guidance from the LEF's trustee, Gail R. 
Schubert, regarding whether contributions from companies that 
are separate legal entities and ``operate under separate 
financial records'' were subject to the same contribution 
limit. The trustee's opinion was that such contributions were 
permissible and not subject to the same contribution limit if 
the companies were separate legal entities and operated under 
separate financial records.
    On October 13, 2011, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations that Representative Young may have accepted 
contributions to his LEF in excess of the $5,000 per calendar 
year limit from any individual or organization.
    On November 17, 2011, the Chairman and Ranking Member 
authorized an investigation pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a) to 
gather additional information related to the allegations in the 
OCE's Report and Findings. The Committee also conducted a 
review of the advice generally given to individuals with LEFs 
in interpreting the Legal Expense Fund Regulations issued by 
the Committee on June 10, 1996 (1996 LEF Regulations). Based on 
the information gathered during the 18(a) investigation, as 
well as the Committee's review of the advice generally given, 
on December 14, 2011, the Committee voted unanimously to 
resolve the issues surrounding Representative Young's 
outstanding request for guidance from the Committee and the 
allegations referred by the OCE, by issuing a letter to 
Representative Young and releasing a Report.
    With respect to Representative Young's request for guidance 
from the Committee, the Committee, in guidance issued 
contemporaneously with the Report on December 20, 2011, 
determined that the $5,000 contributions by the twelve 
Louisiana LLCs to Representative Young were permissible under 
the 1996 LEF Regulations issued by the Committee, and that the 
LEF's acceptance of those contributions did not violate House 
rules. The Committee also adopted revised LEF Regulations, 
issued contemporaneously with the Report, that provide clarity 
on several matters related to LEFs, including restrictions on 
contributions from multiple entities owned by the same 
individual or individuals. Those regulations are included in 
this Report in Appendix I.
    The Committee also dismissed the allegations in the OCE 
referral. With respect to the referral from OCE, the Committee 
determined that, based on the 1996 LEF Regulations and long-
standing Committee advice, multiple entities owned by the same 
individual or individuals were permitted to make contributions 
up to $5,000 per entity if they were separate legal entities. 
The twelve Louisiana LLCs were separate legal entities and were 
separately registered with the Louisiana Secretary of State. 
Further, the entities provide separate and distinct products or 
services and were formed at different times. Based on those 
reasons, the Committee voted to dismiss OCE's referral.

Representative Alcee L. Hastings

    On November 8, 2011, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations that Representative Alcee L. Hastings may have 
violated House Rule XXIII, clause 1, and the Congressional 
Accountability Act, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1311(a), 1317(a), where 
he allegedly engaged in employment discrimination, unwelcome 
sexual advances, and unwelcome sexual conduct towards a staffer 
of the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in 
Europe. The Committee released OCE's Report and Findings on 
January 11, 2012, and noted in a public statement that the 
Committee was continuing to review the allegations pursuant to 
Committee Rule 18(a).
    As of the conclusion of the 112th Congress the Committee 
had not completed its investigation into this matter.

Representative Laura Richardson\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Representative Laura Richardson, H. Rept. 112-642, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. 
(2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In October 2010, the Committee received complaints from 
several members of Representative Laura Richardson's staff in 
both her Washington, D.C., and Long Beach, California, offices, 
indicating that Representative Richardson required her staff to 
perform campaign work. Based on these complaints, the then-
Chair and then-Ranking Republican Member of the Committee for 
the 111th Congress authorized Committee staff to conduct an 
inquiry into these allegations pursuant to Committee Rule 
18(a). On October 15, 2010, Committee counsel notified 
Representative Richardson in writing of the inquiry and 
requested she make her staff and documents and records 
available to the Committee. During the 18(a) phase of the 
inquiry, Committee staff obtained documents from Representative 
Richardson and her staff and interviewed 17 witnesses, 
including members of Representative Richardson's staff.
    On November 3, 2011, based on the results of the 18(a) 
investigation and the recommendation of Committee staff, the 
Committee empanelled an Investigative Subcommittee (ISC) to 
investigate allegations that Representative Richardson, as well 
as two members of her official staff, had (1) engaged in 
improper use of House resources for campaign, personal, and 
nonofficial purposes; and (2) improperly required or compelled 
official staff to perform campaign work.
    At the completion of its investigation, the ISC unanimously 
concluded that there was substantial reason to believe that 
Representative Richardson had violated 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301; 
House Rule XXIII clauses 1, 2, and 8; clause 2 of the Code of 
Ethics for Government Service; and other standards of conduct, 
by improperly using House resources for campaign, personal, and 
nonofficial purposes; by requiring or compelling her official 
staff to perform campaign work; and by obstructing the 
investigation of the Committee and the ISC through the 
alteration or destruction of evidence, the deliberate failure 
to produce documents responsive to requests for information and 
a subpoena, and/or attempting to influence the testimony of 
witnesses.
    On July 18, 2012, pursuant to a negotiated settlement with 
Representative Richardson, the ISC unanimously voted to adopt a 
Statement of Alleged Violation (SAV) against Representative 
Richardson. On July 26, 2012, the ISC submitted a Report to the 
full Committee unanimously recommending that the full Committee 
submit a public report to the House. The ISC further 
recommended that the adoption of that Report by the House would 
serve as a reprimand of Representative Richardson for her 
misconduct. Additionally, the ISC recommended that the 
Committee recommend that the House impose a fine on 
Representative Richardson in the amount of $10,000, to be paid 
no later than December 1, 2012. The ISC strongly discouraged 
Representative Richardson from permitting any of her official 
staff to perform work on her campaign (either on a paid or 
volunteer basis), but recommended to the Committee that, to the 
extent any of her official staff did perform work on her 
campaign in the future, that said staff be required to sign a 
waiver asserting that such work would be performed voluntarily 
and was not compelled by Representative Richardson. As part of 
the negotiated resolution, Representative Richardson agreed to 
waive all further procedural rights in the matter provided to 
her by House or Committee rules, and agreed to admit to all 
seven counts in the SAV, pay a $10,000 fine by December 1, 
2012, and accept all other terms of the ISC's recommendation.
    As part of its investigation, the ISC also inquired as to 
the role of Representative Richardson's Chief of Staff, Shirley 
Cooks, and Deputy District Director, Daysha Austin, in this 
matter. Following its investigation, the ISC concluded that Ms. 
Cooks and Ms. Austin had required other members of 
Representative Richardson's staff to perform campaign work and 
had used House resources for campaign purposes. Pursuant to 
separate negotiated settlements, Ms. Cooks and Ms. Austin each 
agreed to waive all further procedural rights in the matter 
provided to them by House or Committee rules. The ISC then 
recommended that the Committee issue public letters of reproval 
to Ms. Cooks and Ms. Austin for their conduct. The Committee 
accepted this recommendation and issued public Letters of 
Reproval to Ms. Cooks and Ms. Austin on August 1, 2012.
    On August 1, 2012, the Committee submitted to the House its 
Report regarding this matter, in which the Committee adopted 
the ISC's Report and all of its recommendations. Following 
debate before the full House, the House of Representatives 
adopted the Committee's Report regarding Representative 
Richardson by unanimous consent on August 2, 2012, and thus 
reprimanded her for her use of official resources for campaign 
and personal purposes, and for obstruction of the Committee's 
investigation. By adopting the Committee's Report, the House of 
Representatives also imposed a $10,000 fine on Representative 
Richardson, as recommended by the ISC and full Committee.

Representative Vern Buchanan (Financial Disclosure Statements)\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Representative Vernon G. Buchanan, H. Rept. 112-588, 112th Cong. 2d 
Sess. (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 8, 2011, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations that Representative Vern Buchanan may have violated 
House Rule XXVI, clause 2, and the Ethics in Government Act, 5 
U.S.C. app. 4 Sec. 101 et seq., by failing to properly list on 
his Financial Disclosure Statements for 2007 through 2010 
certain positions with a number of entities, as well as certain 
income from those positions. Representative Buchanan amended 
his 2007 through 2010 Financial Disclosure Statements while the 
OCE conducted its investigation. On February 6, 2012, pursuant 
to Committee Rule 17A(c)(2), the Committee published the OCE's 
Report and Findings relating to allegations against 
Representative Buchanan.
    After conducting an investigation of this matter pursuant 
to Committee Rule 18(a), the Committee issued a Report on July 
10, 2012, in which it unanimously concluded that Representative 
Buchanan did not report on his Financial Disclosure Statements 
for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, in complete and accurate 
detail, all of the positions or ownership interests he held 
with several entities and that he did not accurately report 
certain income received from those same entities in the same 
years. However, the Committee also unanimously determined that 
these errors and omissions were not substantively different 
from the hundreds or thousands of errors and omissions 
corrected by amendment at the requirement of the Committee 
every year. Because Representative Buchanan had remedied the 
errors and omissions by his subsequent amendments, the 
Committee determined that no further action was warranted in 
this matter.

Representative Vern Buchanan (Campaign Finance/Witness Tampering)

    On February 9, 2012, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations that Representative Vern Buchanan may have violated 
18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 201, 1505, and 1512, as well as House Rule 
XXIII, clause 1, by making the settlement of a lawsuit against 
a former business partner contingent on the business partner 
signing a false affidavit to be filed with the Federal Election 
Commission. The Committee released the OCE's Report and 
Findings on May 9, 2012, and noted in a public statement that 
the Committee was continuing to review the allegations pursuant 
to Committee Rule 18(a).
    As of the conclusion of the 112th Congress the Committee 
had not completed its investigation into this matter.

Representative Shelley Berkley\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Representative Shelley Berkley, H. Rept. 112-716, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. 
(2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 9, 2012, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations that Representative Shelley Berkley used her 
official position for personal gain and violated conflict of 
interest precedent by taking official action on behalf of the 
University Medical Center of Southern Nevada (UMC) Kidney 
Transplant Program in order to prevent the Centers for Medicare 
and Medicaid Services (CMS) from terminating the program's 
Medicare approval. On March 23, 2012, the Chairman and Ranking 
Member issued a public statement and jointly extended the 
matter referred by the OCE for an additional 45 days. Prior to 
the end of the second 45-day period, on June 29, 2012, the full 
Committee voted unanimously to empanel an Investigative 
Subcommittee to investigate allegations that Representative 
Shelley Berkley improperly used her official position for her 
financial interest, dispensed special favors or privileges to 
her husband, and allowed her husband to contact her or members 
of her staff on behalf of a third party.
    The ISC unanimously concluded that the information it 
obtained indicated that Representative Berkley violated House 
Rules, regulations, laws or other standards of conduct when she 
permitted her office to take official action specifically on 
behalf of her husband's practice. However, the ISC did not find 
that Representative Berkley violated any such rules or laws 
when she intervened on behalf of UMC in an effort to prevent 
CMS from terminating Medicare approval of UMC's kidney 
transplant program, or when she permitted her husband to 
contact her office on behalf of other business entities, fellow 
members of a professional association, or other third parties 
seeking official action. The ISC adopted its Report on December 
13, 2012, and transmitted it to the full Committee on the same 
day. In its Report, the ISC noted that Representative Berkley 
was entirely cooperative with the investigation, and credited 
her testimony both in terms of candor, and in terms of her 
objective lack of malicious intent in violating the rules.
    On December 20, 2012, after providing Representative 
Berkley with a copy of the ISC's Report and inviting her to a 
hearing before the full Committee, the Committee unanimously 
adopted its own Report. In its Report, the Committee adopted 
the ISC's Report and accepted the ISC's recommendations. On 
December 20, 2012, the Committee submitted its Report to the 
House and closed this matter.

In the Matter of the Sudanese Embassy Protest Arrests\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Regarding Arrests of 
Members of the House During a Protest Outside the Embassy of Sudan in 
Washington, DC, on March 16, 2012, H. Rept. 112-419, 112th Cong. 2d 
Sess. (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In accordance with the requirements of H. Res. 451, H. Res. 
5, Section 4(d) and Committee Rule 18(e)(2), the Committee 
convened on March 20, 2012, to consider the arrests of four 
Members--Representatives Al Green, James P. McGovern, James P. 
Moran, and John W. Olver--for crossing a police line during a 
protest outside the Embassy of Sudan on March 16, 2012. Each of 
the four Members paid a $100 fine on the date of their arrest. 
Payment of the fine ended legal proceedings in the District of 
Columbia with regard to each arrest.
    After reviewing and considering this matter, the Committee 
voted against empanelling an Investigative Subcommittee. In 
reaching this decision, the Committee considered the scope and 
nature of the violation, and determined it to be one for which 
review by an Investigative Subcommittee was not required. On 
March 22, 2012, the Committee submitted a Report to the House 
of Representatives describing the facts and its findings 
regarding this matter.

Representative Robert E. Andrews

    On April 2, 2012, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations that Representative Robert Andrews converted funds 
from his principal campaign committee and leadership political 
action committee (PAC) to personal use by paying for trips to 
Scotland and to California with family members from campaign 
and leadership PAC funds. Committee Rule 17A(j) provides that 
the Committee may postpone any reporting requirement related to 
an OCE referral that falls within that 60-day period until 
after the date of the election in which the subject of the 
referral is a candidate. Representative Andrews was on the 
primary ballot in June 2012. Therefore, the announcement that 
the Chairman and Ranking Member jointly decided to extend the 
matter of Representative Andrews for a 45-day period pursuant 
to Committee Rules 17A(b)(1)(A) and 17A(j) was postponed until 
July 17, 2012. On August 31, 2012, the Chairman and Ranking 
Member released a public statement that, pursuant to Committee 
Rule 18(a), the Committee would continue to review the matter. 
On that same date, pursuant to Committee Rule 17A(c)(2), the 
Committee published OCE's Report and Findings relating to 
allegations against Representative Andrews.
    As of the conclusion of the 112th Congress, the Committee 
had not completed its investigation into this matter.

Representative Michael G. Grimm

    On June 29, 2012, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report in which it recommended dismissal of allegations that 
Representative Michael G. Grimm violated federal campaign 
finance laws, where he allegedly solicited and accepted 
prohibited campaign contributions, including contributions in 
excess of contribution limits, excessive cash contributions, 
contributions from foreign nationals, and contributions made in 
the name of another. The OCE's Report contained additional 
allegations that Representative Grimm had filed false 
information in his campaign finance reports to the Federal 
Election Commission, and that he may have improperly sought 
assistance from a foreign national in soliciting campaign 
contributions in exchange for offering to use his official 
position to assist that individual in obtaining a green card. 
The OCE recommended dismissal because it ``could not establish 
with sufficient certainty that a violation occurred after 
Representative Grimm became a Member of Congress.''
    On November 15, 2012, the Committee unanimously voted to 
continue to affirm jurisdiction over matters relating to a 
successful campaign for election to the House of 
Representatives. The Committee had previously taken this 
position with respect to its jurisdiction in other matters 
similar to these allegations, where Members had allegedly 
violated laws, rules, or standards of conduct when conducting 
their initial campaign for the House.\15\ Because the Committee 
disagreed with the OCE's conclusion regarding its jurisdiction, 
the Committee decided to investigate the matter pursuant to 
Committee Rule 18(a). However, just before the Committee would 
have been required to issue the report of the OCE, the 
Department of Justice requested that the Committee defer its 
consideration of this matter. The Committee agreed to do so 
and, consistent with House and Committee Rules, publicly 
announced the deferral on November 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\See, e.g., House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, In 
the Matter of Representative Earl F. Hilliard, H. Rept. 107-130, 107th 
Cong. 1st Sess. (2001); House Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Jay Kim, H. Rept. 105-797, 
105th Cong. 2d Sess. at 6, 677 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As of the conclusion of the 112th Congress the Committee 
had not completed its investigation into this matter.

Representative William L. Owens

    On August 30, 2012, the OCE referred to the Committee 
allegations regarding Representative William L. Owens. On 
December 14, 2012, the Chairman and Ranking Member jointly 
decided to extend the matter of Representative William Owens 
for a 45-day period pursuant to Committee Rules 17A(b)(1)(A) 
and 17A(j).

Representative Aaron Schock

    On August 30, 2012, the OCE referred to the Committee 
allegations regarding Representative Aaron Schock. On December 
14, 2012, the Chairman and Ranking Member jointly decided to 
extend the matter of Representative Aaron Schock for a 45-day 
period pursuant to Committee Rules 17A(b)(1)(A) and 17A(j).

Representative Silvestre Reyes

    On August 30, 2012, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a 
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of 
allegations that Representative Silvestre Reyes violated 31 
U.S.C. Sec. 1301, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 607, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 439a(b)(1), 
11 C.F.R. Sec. 113.1(g)(1)(i)(E), and House Rule XXIII, clause 
6(b), where public records indicated that Representative Reyes 
may have held campaign meetings on House property, and that he 
may have improperly used campaign funds to pay for certain 
expenses related to his daughter's residence. The Committee 
released OCE's Report and Findings on November 28, 2012.
    As of the conclusion of the 112th Congress, the Committee 
had not completed its investigation in this matter. 
Representative Reyes lost his primary election and the 
Committee will not have jurisdiction over him after January 3, 
2013.

Joy Henrichs\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Joy Henrichs, H. Rept. 
112-696, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In accordance with the requirements of Committee Rule 
18(e)(2), the Committee convened on November 15, 2012, to 
consider the arrest of Joy Henrichs, an employee of the House, 
on August 16, 2012, in Virginia for driving under the 
influence. After reviewing and considering this matter, the 
Committee voted against empanelling an Investigative 
Subcommittee. In reaching this decision, the Committee 
considered the scope and nature of the violation, and 
determined it to be one for which review by an Investigative 
Subcommittee was not required. On November 16, 2012, the 
Committee submitted a Report to the House of Representatives 
describing the facts and its findings regarding this matter.

Representative Tim Ryan\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative Tim Ryan, 
H. Rept. 112-710, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In accordance with the requirements of H. Res. 451, H. Res. 
5, Section 4(d) and Committee Rule 18(e)(2), the Committee 
convened on December 19, 2012, to consider the charge filed 
against Representative Tim Ryan on August 25, 2012, in Virginia 
for public intoxication. On December 4, 2012, Representative 
Ryan was found not guilty of the charge. After reviewing and 
considering this matter, the Committee voted against 
empanelling an investigative subcommittee. In reaching this 
decision, the Committee considered the scope and nature of the 
violation, and determined it to be one for which review by an 
investigative subcommittee was not required. On December 20, 
2012, the Committee submitted a report to the House of 
Representatives describing the facts and its findings regarding 
this matter.

Countrywide Financial Corporation

    On December 19, 2012, the Committee completed its review of 
allegations related to the ``V.I.P.'' program of the 
Countrywide Financial Corporation (Countrywide). On December 
27, 2012, the Chairman and Ranking Member issued a public 
statement regarding the resolution of this matter as well as a 
general advisory to Members and employees regarding the use of 
one's position in the House of Representatives for personal 
gain or benefit.
    Numerous allegations were made that certain Members and 
employees of the House of Representatives acted improperly when 
they received ``discounts'' on personal residential or vacation 
property loans, or when their loan applications were handled by 
an office within Countrywide called the ``V.I.P Loan Unit,'' or 
handled as ``Friends of Angelo,'' referring to Angelo Mozilo, 
the former CEO of Countrywide. In addition, the evidence 
suggested that certain House employees made explicit requests 
to Countrywide lobbyists or spoke to a Countrywide lobbyist 
about their personal loan needs, and that the lobbyists then 
facilitated those loans.
    While these allegations concern serious matters, almost all 
of the allegations concerned actions taken outside, or well 
outside, the jurisdiction of this Committee, as designated in 
House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(3), because they occurred before the 
third Congress prior to the current Congress. In addition, 
several of the Members and employees mentioned in the 
allegations are no longer serving in or employed by the House, 
and therefore are outside the Committee's jurisdiction pursuant 
to House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(2).
    After a lengthy and deliberate review, including more than 
2,000 pages of documentation provided by Countrywide or its 
successor, Bank of America, as well as giving careful and 
serious consideration to the submission and reports of the 
Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
the Committee unanimously agreed to end its review with the 
publication of a statement and the issuance of a general 
advisory. That general advisory is reprinted in Appendix I and 
is available on the Committee's web site.

Other Committee investigative actions

    In addition to the publicly disclosed matters discussed in 
this Report, the Committee either commenced review of, or 
continued to review from the 111th Congress, 69 investigative 
matters. Of these 69 matters which remain confidential, 42 were 
resolved in the 112th Congress.

                               APPENDIX I


                              APPENDIX II


                              APPENDIX III


                              APPENDIX IV


                               APPENDIX V


