[House Report 115-1125]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 892
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-1125
_______________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
January 2, 2019.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-969 WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
Chairwoman Ranking Member
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JARED POLIS, Colorado
MIMI WALTERS, California ANTHONY BROWN, Maryland
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
REPORT STAFF
Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
Brittney Pescatore, Director of Investigations
Tonia Smith, Director of Advice and Education
Megan H. Savage, Counsel to the Chairwoman
Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Ranking Member
Molly McCarty, Investigator
Matthew Steiner, Financial Disclosure Clerk
Audrey Hickenlooper, Advice and Education Clerk
Mark Hamilton, Investigative Clerk
Kathryn Lefeber Donahue, Senior Counsel
David Arrojo, Counsel
Katherine L. Dacey, Counsel
Janet Foster, Counsel
C. Ezekiel Ross, Counsel
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ethics,
Washington, DC, January 2, 2019.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of Rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we herewith
transmit the attached Report, ``Summary of Activities 115th
Congress.''
Sincerely,
Susan W. Brooks,
Chairwoman.
Theodore E. Deutch,
Ranking Member.
C O N T E N T S
----------
I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................3
II. ADVICE AND EDUCATION.............................................4
III. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE............................................10
IV. COMMITTEE RULES.................................................12
V. WORKPLACE MISCONDUCT............................................12
VI. INVESTIGATIONS..................................................15
APPENDIX I: RELEVANT HOUSE RULES
APPENDIX II: ADVISORY MEMORANDUM
APPENDIX III: COMMITTEE RULES
APPENDIX IV: PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Union Calendar No. 892
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-1125
======================================================================
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
_______
January 2, 2019--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Ms. Brooks of Indiana, from the Committee on Ethics, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
Overview
The Committee on Ethics (Committee) 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 115th Congress, the Committee was led by Chairwoman
Susan W. Brooks and Ranking Member Theodore E. Deutch. The
Members appointed at the beginning of the Congress were Patrick
Meehan, Yvette Clarke, Trey Gowdy, Jared Polis, Kenny Marchant,
Anthony Brown, Leonard Lance, and Steve Cohen. In January 2018,
Representative Mimi Walters replaced Representative Trey Gowdy,
and Representative John Ratcliffe replaced Representative
Patrick Meehan.
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 for the House, officers, and senior staff
are required to file; and investigating and adjudicating
allegations of misconduct and violations of rules, laws, or
other standards of conduct. As discussed at greater length in
Section V, in the 115th Congress the Committee also worked with
others in the House to draft and pass legislation to improve
the process for reporting and addressing allegations of
workplace misconduct in the legislative branch.
The Committee met 27 times in the 115th Congress, including
15 times in 2017, and 12 times in 2018.
Within the scope of its training, advice and education,
travel, and financial disclosure responsibilities, the
Committee:
Issued more than 740 formal advisory
opinions regarding ethics rules;
Reviewed and approved more than 4,000
requests to accept privately-sponsored, officially-
connected travel;
Fielded nearly 48,000 informal telephone
calls, emails, and in-person requests for guidance on
ethics issues;
Released 16 advisory memoranda on various
ethics topics to the House;
Provided training to approximately 9,000
House Members, officers, and employees each year, and
reviewed their certifications for satisfying the
House's mandatory training requirements;
Received nearly 9,500 Financial Disclosure
Statements and amendments filed by House Members,
officers, senior staff, and House candidates; and
Received more than 4,000 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 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 Rules 18(a) and 18(c),
the impanelment of investigative subcommittees (ISCs),
consideration of formal complaints, and the review of
transmittals from the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).
Committee review of a matter in any of these formats is an
``investigation'' under House and Committee rules. Also, it is
not uncommon for a matter to be investigated by the Committee
in more than one of these formats over the course of the
Committee's overall review of that matter. For example, as
discussed further in this report, from time to time the
Committee may begin an investigation under Committee Rule 18(a)
and subsequently determine that it is appropriate to continue
the investigation through an ISC.
The initiation or status of an investigative matter may or
may not be publicly disclosed, depending on the circumstances
of the individual matter. However, the fact that the Committee
is investigating a particular matter, opts to investigate a
matter in one format instead of another, is required or chooses
to make a public statement regarding a pending investigative
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 115th Congress, within the scope of its
investigative responsibilities, the Committee:
Commenced or continued investigative fact-
gathering regarding 56 separate investigative matters;
Impanelled seven new ISCs, in the matters of
Representative Chris Collins, Representative Blake
Farenthold, Representative Trent Franks, Representative
Duncan Hunter, Representative Ruben Kihuen,
Representative Patrick Meehan, and Representative David
Schweikert;
Held 24 ISC meetings;
Filed 11 reports with the House totaling over
2,500 pages regarding various investigative matters;
Released 1 staff report totaling over 150
pages;
Publicly addressed 29 matters, described in
Section V of this report;
Resolved 16 additional matters;
Conducted 80 voluntary witness interviews;
Authorized the issuance of 12 subpoenas; and
Reviewed over 433,000 pages of documents.
All votes taken in the ISCs were unanimous. There were a
total of 8 investigative matters pending before the Committee
as of January 2, 2019.
All of the Committee's work as summarized in this report is
made possible by the Committee's talented professional,
nonpartisan staff. The Members of the Committee wish to
acknowledge their hard work and dedication to the Committee and
the House. In addition, the Committee wishes to thank its
departing Members, Representative Lance, Representative Polis,
and Representative Walters, for their service and for the
thoughtfulness and collegiality they showed during their time
on the Committee.
I. INTRODUCTION
House Rule XI, clause 1(d), requires each committee to
submit to the House, not later than January 2 of each odd-
numbered year, a report on the activities of that committee
under that rule and House Rule X. This report summarizes the
activities of the Committee for the entirety of the 115th
Congress.
The jurisdiction of the Committee on Ethics is defined in
clauses 4(d)(1) of House Rule II, 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 attached as
Appendix I to this Report.
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 (EIGA) (5 U.S.C.
app. Sec. Sec. 101 et seq.) and the ``employing agency'' for
certain purposes under the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (5
U.S.C. Sec. 7342). The outside employment and earned income
limitations of the EIGA are administered by the Committee with
respect to House Members, officers, and employees (5 U.S.C.
app. Sec. 503(1)(A)). Finally, the notification of negotiation
and recusal requirements created by the Honest Leadership and
Open Government Act (HLOGA) are administered, in part, by the
Committee.
II. ADVICE AND EDUCATION
Pursuant to a provision of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (2
U.S.C. Sec. 4711(i)), the Committee maintains an Office of
Advice and Education, which is staffed as directed by the
Committee's Chairwoman 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 Chairwoman
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
Chairwoman 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. 4711(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. Committee Rule 3(l) also precludes the Committee from
using information provided to the Committee by a requesting
individual ``seeking advice regarding prospective conduct . . .
as the basis for initiating an investigation,'' provided that
the requesting individual ``acts in good faith in accordance
with the written advice of the Committee.'' 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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\For example, a federal court held that it is a complete defense
to a prosecution for conduct assertedly in violation of a related
federal criminal strict-liability statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 208) that the
conduct was undertaken in good faith reliance upon erroneous legal
advice received from the official's supervising ethics office. United
States v. Hedges, 912 F.2d 1397, 1403 n.2 (11th Cir. 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 115th 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 115th
Congress, Committee attorneys responded to more than 46,000
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 website: https://
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 115th Congress were as follows:
The 2017 Outside Earned Income Limit and
Salaries Triggering the Financial Disclosure
Requirement and Post-Employment Restrictions Applicable
to House Officers and Employees (January 17, 2017);
Upcoming Financial Disclosure Clinics &
Training (April 7, 2017);
Helping the Victims of Hurricane Harvey
(September 2, 2017);
Reminder about Annual Ethics Training
Requirements for 2017 (December 20, 2017);
Current Guidance on Sexual Harassment and
Employment Discrimination in the Congressional
Workplace (December 22, 2017);
The 2018 Outside Earned Income Limit and
Salaries Triggering the Financial Disclosure
Requirement and Post-Employment Restrictions Applicable
to House Officers and Employees (January 5, 2018);
Ethics Guidance Related to Operations During
a Lapse in Appropriations (January 19, 2018);
Campaign Activity Guidance (June 7, 2018);
Cryptocurrencies: Financial Disclosure
Requirements and Other Ethics Ramifications (June 18,
2018);
Guidance on Personal Endorsement of Promotion
by Members of the House of Representatives (August 24,
2018);
Important Information Relating to Hurricane
Florence (September 14, 2018);
Holiday Guidance on the Gift Rule (November
29, 2018);
Reminder About Annual Ethics Training
Requirements (December 20, 2018);
Member Swearing-in Receptions (December 20,
2018);
Negotiations for Future Employment and
Restrictions on Post-Employment for House Staff
(January 2, 2019);
Negotiations for Future Employment and
Restrictions on Post-Employment for House Members and
Officers (January 2, 2019).
A copy of each of these advisory memoranda is included as
Appendix II to this Report. In addition, these memoranda are
available to the House and the public on the Committee's
website: https://ethics.house.gov.
Copies of all current Committee publications are available
from the Committee's office, and their text is posted on the
Committee's website. The Committee also submits a report each
month of the Committee's activities to the Committee on House
Administration (CHA). Finally, with this report, 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 are paid at the ``senior staff rate''
to complete an additional hour of training once each Congress
on issues primarily of interest to senior staff.\2\ Rule XI
requires new House Members and employees to complete ethics
training within 60 days of the commencement of their service to
the House.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\In 2018, the senior staff rate was $126,148 per year, or a
monthly salary above $10,512. This figure is subject to change each
year, and the Committee issues a general advisory memorandum to all
House Members, officers, and employees announcing changes in this and
other salary thresholds relevant to ethics rules.
\3\The requirement that new Members receive training within 60 days
of commencement of their service to the House was added to House Rule
XI in the 114th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to its obligations under Rule XI, the Committee
held 67 ethics training sessions during 2017 and 90 during
2018. During the 115th 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 senior 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.
In 2017, the Committee trained more than 2,100 employees in
person at live ethics briefings, and more than 6,200 used one
of the on-line training options. During 2018, the Committee
trained nearly 2,200 employees in person at live ethics
briefings, and more than 5,600 through one of the on-line
training options. The total number of employees who completed
ethics training for 2018 will be determined after January 31,
2019, the date that House Rule XI established as the deadline
for employees to certify completion of the ethics training
requirement for 2018.
In addition to the training required under House Rule XI,
the Committee also provided training in several other contexts.
The House will include approximately 90 new Members in the
116th Congress, most of whom have not previously served in the
House. The Committee made a presentation to the Members-elect
of the 116th Congress during New Member Orientation. The
Committee also 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 are discussed further in Section III. Finally, together
with CHA, the Committee participated in two general briefings,
one in 2017 and one in 2018, on the rules related to Member
participation in the Congressional Art Competition.
Committee staff also participated in approximately 50
briefings sponsored by or held for the members of outside
organizations. In addition, Committee staff led approximately
17 briefings for visiting international dignitaries from a
variety of countries, including Argentina, Nigeria, and Kenya.
The Committee will continue this outreach activity in the
116th Congress.
ADVISORY OPINION LETTERS
The Committee's Office of Advice and Education, under the
direction and supervision of the Committee's Chairwoman and
Ranking Member, prepared and issued approximately 750 private
advisory opinions during the 115th Congress: 400 in 2017 and
341 in 2018. Opinions issued by the Committee in the 115th
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.
Since 2007, the Committee has conducted a thorough review of
each proposed privately-sponsored trip.
Committee approval of a proposed trip does not reflect an
endorsement of the trip sponsor. Instead, Committee approval is
limited to the question of whether the proposed trip complies
with the relevant laws, rules, or regulations. To that end, the
Committee's nonpartisan, professional staff recommends changes
where necessary to bring a proposed trip into compliance with
relevant laws, rules, or regulations and, on occasion, informs
House Members and employees that a proposed trip is not
permissible. The Committee recognizes both the significant
benefit the public receives when their Representatives and
their Representatives' staff receive hands-on education and
experience, as well as the mandate that outside groups be
appropriately limited in what gifts and support they are
allowed to provide to Members of Congress and congressional
staff.
The Committee is directed by House Rules to develop and
revise as necessary guidelines and regulations governing the
acceptance of privately-sponsored, officially-connected travel
by House Members, officers, and employees.\4\ The Committee
issued initial travel regulations in a pair of memoranda dated
February 20 and March 14, 2007. At the end of the 112th
Congress, the Committee adopted new travel regulations (Travel
Regulations). The new Travel Regulations were issued on
December 27, 2012, and were effective for all trips beginning
on or after April 1, 2013. In the 115th Congress, the Committee
continued its ongoing efforts to review the guidelines and
regulations regarding privately-funded, officially-connected
travel. This review included a thorough examination of the
forms used for privately-funded, officially-connected travel
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\House Rule XXV, clause 5(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the Committee requires that any House Member,
officer, or employee who wishes to accept an offer of
privately-sponsored, officially-connected travel must submit
all required paperwork to the Committee at least 30 days prior
to the start of the trip.\5\ However, the 30-day requirement
does not apply to certain types of trips, and the Committee
retains authority to approve requests submitted after that
deadline in exceptional circumstances.\6\ When the Committee
opts to approve a request filed after the general deadline, the
approval letter sent to the traveler--which must ultimately be
publicly disclosed--notes that fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\House Comm. on Ethics, Travel Guidelines and Regulations (Dec.
27, 2012) (Travel Regulations) at Part 500--Committee Approval Process,
available at https://ethics.house.gov/sites/
ethics.house.gov/files/documents/travel%20regs.pdf.
\6\Id. at Sec. 501.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the travel approval process established by the
Committee to implement this rule, the Committee reviewed more
than 2,500 requests to accept privately-sponsored, officially-
connected travel, and issued letters approving more than 2,000
such requests in 2017. In 2018, the Committee reviewed nearly
2,300 requests to accept privately-sponsored, officially-
connected travel, and issued letters approving nearly 2,000
such requests.
House Rules and the Committee's Travel Regulations require
all House Members, officers, and employees who receive
Committee approval to accept privately-sponsored, officially-
connected travel to file detailed paperwork about the trip with
the Clerk within 15 days of the conclusion of the trip.\7\ The
Committee also reviewed the post-travel disclosure forms filed
by the traveler for each approved trip and requested amendments
or other remedial action by the traveler when deemed
necessary.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\House Rule XXV, clause 5(b)(1)(A)(ii); Travel Regulations at
Part 600--Post-Travel Disclosure.
\8\From time to time, a traveler may inadvertently fail to file all
of the required paperwork with their post-travel submission. That is
not an indication that the information was not provided to the
Committee prior to the trip and before the Committee approved the
request, only that the traveler's subsequent submission was incomplete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post-travel filings are made available to the public in
a searchable online database on the Clerk's website, at http://
clerk.house.gov/public_disc/giftTravel-search.aspx. The public,
the media, and outside groups have used this valuable resource
for years, and the Committee anticipates that they will
continue to do so. The Committee requires those Members,
officers, and employees who are required to file financial
disclosure statements, as discussed in Section III, to also
provide information about privately-sponsored, officially-
connected travel on their financial disclosure filings, but the
public should be aware that much more detailed and timely
public filings regarding such travel are required, and the most
authoritative source of those filings is the Clerk's website.
III. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA), as
amended (5 U.S.C. app. 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
Financial Disclosure Statements (Statements). These Statements
disclose information concerning the filer's finances, as well
as those of certain family members. By May 15 of each year,
these ``covered individuals'' are required to file a Statement
that provides information for the preceding calendar year. In
addition, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act
(STOCK Act) amended EIGA in 2012 to add a requirement that
financial disclosure filers must report certain securities
transactions over $1,000 no later than 45 days after the
transaction. The Committee has termed these interim reports
``Periodic Transaction Reports'' or ``PTRs.''
Financial disclosure filings are not intended to be net
worth statements, nor are they well suited to that purpose. As
the Commission on Administrative Review of the 95th Congress
stated in recommending broader financial disclosure
requirements: ``The objectives of financial disclosure are to
inform the public about the financial interests of government
officials in order to increase public confidence in the
integrity of government and to deter potential conflicts of
interest.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\House Comm. on Admin. Review, Financial Ethics, H. Doc. 95-73,
96th Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Members of the House, including Members who are serving
the first year of their first term, are required to file a
Statement. In addition, any officer or employee of the House
who was paid at or above 120 percent of the minimum pay for
Executive Branch GS-15 (the ``senior staff'' rate) for at least
60 days in a calendar year must file a Statement on or before
May 15 of the following year. Certain other employees,
including those designated by a Member as a ``principal
assistant'' for financial disclosure purposes and employees who
are shared staff of three or more offices, are also subject to
some financial disclosure filing requirements. Most Members,
officers and employees who are otherwise required to file
Statements must file a termination report within 30 days of the
termination of their employment with the House.
Starting in 2013, financial disclosure filers were able to
use an online electronic filing system to draft and submit
their Statements and PTRs. Thanks to a very industrious
collaboration with the Clerk of the House to create the online
system, and extensive outreach and education, a majority of all
Members and staff used the online electronic filing system to
submit their calendar year 2018 Statements. Specifically, 83%
of Members and 90% of House staff used the online system to
draft and submit their 2018 Statements.
The Committee engages in substantial training efforts to
assist filers with completing their Statements and PTRs. The
Committee held nine briefings for Members, officers, and
employees. The Committee hosted seven walk-in clinics to
support filers' use of the electronic filing system for
Statements and PTRs.
For the 115th Congress, the Committee continued its long-
standing practice of Committee staff meeting with Members,
officers, and employees of the House to assist filers with
their Statements and PTRs. Committee staff responded to
telephone, e-mail, and in-person questions from filers on an
as-needed basis, in addition to reviewing drafts of Statements
and PTRs. The Committee encourages all financial disclosure
filers to avail themselves of opportunities to seek and receive
information and assistance.
For calendar year 2017, the Legislative Resource Center of
the Clerk's office referred a total of 4,489 Financial
Disclosure Statements to the Committee for review. Of those,
3,728 were Statements filed by current or new House Members or
employees, and 761 were Statements filed by candidates for the
House. The Clerk's office also referred a total of 2,106 PTRs
to the Committee for review. The Committee received 803 PTRs
from Members and 1,303 PTRs from officers and employees.
For calendar year 2018, the Legislative Resource Center of
the Clerk's office referred a total of 5,009 Statements to the
Committee for review. Of those, 3,721 were Statements filed by
current or new House Members or employees, and 1,288 were
Statements filed by candidates for the House. The Clerk's
office also referred a total of 2,205 PTRs to the Committee for
review. The Committee received 831 PTRs from Members and 1,374
PTRs from officers and employees.
Where the Committee's review indicated that a filed
Statement or PTR was deficient, 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 after the
amendment has been filed. Amendments are made publicly
available in the same manner as other financial disclosure
filings. 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.
More information about financial disclosure, including the
Committee's instruction booklet for filers and blank copies of
Statement and PTR forms, is available on the Committee's
website, at https://ethics.house.gov/financial-dislosure. In
addition, financial disclosure filings of Members and
candidates and other information about financial disclosure is
available on the Clerk's website, at http://clerk.house.gov/
public_disc/financial.aspx.
IV. COMMITTEE RULES
After the beginning of each Congress, the Committee must
adopt rules for that Congress. On March 22, 2017, the Committee
met and adopted the Committee rules for the 115th Congress. The
substance of the Committee rules for the 115th Congress was
largely identical to the amended rules adopted in the 114th
Congress.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\In the 112th Congress, as a result of the efforts of a working
group formed to assess the Committee's rules and procedures, numerous
changes were made to the Committee's investigative rules, including
changes to Committee Rules 4, 9, 17A, 18, 19 and 23. Those changes were
adopted by the Committee on May 18, 2012. House Comm. on Ethics,
Summary of Activities One Hundred Twelfth Congress, H. Rept. 112-730,
112th Cong. 2nd Sess. at 21 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copy of the Committee Rules for the 115th Congress is
included as Appendix III to this Report.
V. WORKPLACE MISCONDUCT
As the Committee stated publicly on numerous occasions
during the 115th Congress, the Committee views allegations of
sexual discrimination and other violations of workplace rights
with the utmost seriousness. The Committee's mandate to enforce
the Code of Official Conduct and other violations of House
Rules, laws and standards of conduct extends to allegations of
workplace misconduct, including allegations related to sexual
harassment and other forms of discrimination. No employee in
any workplace should be subjected to such mistreatment because
of the profound impact upon them as a person. When
congressional employees are subject to work environments that
are unfair and unprofessional, such workplace misconduct also
impedes the work of the House.
Sexual harassment and employment discrimination are
prohibited by both federal statute and the Code of Official
Conduct. The Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) extends the
protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
Congress, prohibiting harassment or discrimination of
individuals in congressional offices on the basis of race,
color, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability.\11\
The CAA established the Office of Compliance (OOC), now named
the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, an independent
office that administers formal and informal procedures to
resolve disputes and provides monetary awards and other
appropriate remedies for congressional employees if a violation
is found. Clause 9 of the Code of Official Conduct similarly
prohibits any Member, officer, or employee of the House from
discriminating against any individual ``with respect to
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of the race, color, religion, sex (including marital or
parental status, disability, age, or national origin of such
individual.'' The Committee has long held the Code's
prohibition on sex discrimination includes sexual harassment,
and clause 9 as a whole should be interpreted in light of
judicial and administrative decisions construing Title VII. On
February 6, 2018, the House passed Resolution 724, which
amended clause 9 to affirm that ``committing an act of sexual
harassment against such an individual'' is included among the
prohibited forms of discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\2 U.S.C. Sec. 1311 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Committee has precedent for investigating
allegations of sexual harassment and other workplace misconduct
under the laws, rules, and standards of conduct that were in
place at the start of the 115th Congress, during the 115th
Congress, the Members of the Committee unanimously supported a
bipartisan proposal to reform the CAA and strengthen workplace
rights and protections for congressional employees. In
particular, the Committee called for changes to (1) clarify
when and how the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights must
provide information to the Committee about allegations of
misconduct, and (2) ensure Members are held personally
accountable for settlements paid with public funds to resolve
claims of sexual harassment against them, even if they leave
the Committee's jurisdiction. The Committee noted that it had
requested information from the OOC, about allegations of
violations of the CAA by Members and staff, but the OOC had
concluded that it lacked authority under existing law to
provide such information to the Committee.\12\ The Committee
worked with the CHA and a bipartisan group of Members on
legislation to include these and other reforms to the existing
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\See e.g. Letter from Comm. on Ethics to Office of Compliance
Executive Director Susan Tsui Grundmann, Dec. 1, 2017, available at
https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/
20171201%20COE%20to%20OOC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 6, 2018, the House passed a bill that included
provisions requested by the Committee H.R. 4924, the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act, with
overwhelming bipartisan support.\13\ The same day, the House
also passed Resolution 724, which amended clause 9 to affirm
that ``committing an act of sexual harassment against such an
individual'' is included among the prohibited forms of
discrimination. This resolution also created an Office of
Employee Advocacy specifically to provide legal counsel to
House employees who need advice or legal representation about
their rights under the CAA. This office can provide free legal
representation to employees in matters before the Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights or the Committee. On May 24,
2017, the Senate passed S. 2952, its version of the legislation
to reform the CAA. The Senate transmitted its version to the
House on May 29, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\See e.g. House Comm. on Ethics, Statement of the Chairwoman and
Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics, Feb. 6, 2018, available at
https://ethics.house.gov/press-release/
statement-chairwoman-and-ranking-member-committee-ethics-0 (discussing
the House bill and the Committee's view of the importance of ethics
provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 19, 2018, the Committee sent a letter to the
House and Senate leadership signed by all ten Members of the
Committee, urging quick action by Congress to pass the much-
needed reforms contained in the House bill.\14\ On December 13,
2018, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act of
1995 Reform Act, which enacts a number of provisions called for
by the Committee. On December 21, 2018, the President signed
the measure into law. The Committee looks forward to working
with other House offices to implement these reforms in the
116th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Letter from Comm. on Ethics to Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell & Minority Leader
Charles E. Schumer, Nov. 19, 2018, available at https://
ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/
20171201%20COE%20to%20OOC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even with reform to the CAA, there are limits to the reach
of federal employment law statutes, which are structured around
providing a civil remedy. Members and their staff, however, are
held to a higher standard of conduct. The Code of Official
Conduct requires Members, officers and employees of the House
to ``behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect
creditably on the House,'' and adhere to ``the spirit and the
letter'' of House Rules. Accordingly, conduct that does not
violate the ``letter'' of anti-discrimination laws may still be
contrary to the spirit of the House's prohibition on
discriminatory conduct or otherwise be found to bring discredit
to the House. Under those rules, Members may be held
accountable not just for their own inappropriate behavior; they
must also take steps to prevent and correct workplace
misconduct by their employees that occurs in their offices.
Moreover, amid an evolving national conversation about
harassment and discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere,
the House should be a leader.
The Committee has investigated and will continue to
investigate allegations of sexual harassment and other
workplace misconduct, and, where such allegations are
substantiated, to sanction Members or staffers for such
conduct. In the 115th Congress, the Committee publicly
announced investigations into five Members and one House
employee for allegations relating to sexual harassment. The
Committee also impaneled an ISC in a matter involving
Representative Blake Farenthold that the OCE referred for
dismissal in the 114th Congress. Despite the OCE's
recommendation in that matter, the Committee determined that
the allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct were concerning
and merited further review. On March 30, 2018, the ISC informed
Representative Farenthold it had scheduled a vote on a
Statement of Alleged Violation (SAV) to occur on April 11,
2018, and would provide him a copy of the SAV upon execution of
a non-disclosure agreement, both of which are necessary
prerequisites under House Rules to recommend a House floor
sanction.\15\ Representative Farenthold resigned on April 6,
2018, before the ISC could complete its work.\16\ He was not
the only investigation subject to resign before the Committee
could resolve a matter; four other subjects of publicly
disclosed investigations opened this Congress into harassing or
discriminatory behavior chose to resign after being provided
the required notice of the Committee's actions. Once a Member
or employee resigns from the House, the Committee no longer has
jurisdiction over them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\See e.g. House Comm. on Ethics, Statement of the Chairwoman and
Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics Regarding Representative
Blake Farenthold, Apr. 12, 2018, available at https://ethics.house.gov/
press-release/statement-chairwoman-and-ranking-member-committee-ethics-
regarding-representative-17.
\16\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. INVESTIGATIONS
Article I, 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.
As a general matter, the Committee's investigative
jurisdiction extends to current House Members, officers and
employees.\17\ When a Member, officer, or employee, who is the
subject of a Committee investigation, resigns, the Committee
loses jurisdiction over the individual. In the 115th Congress,
six individuals resigned from the House while the Committee had
an open investigation regarding them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee may not undertake an investigation of an
alleged violation that occurred before the third previous
Congress unless the Committee determines that the alleged
violation is directly related to an alleged violation that
occurred in a more recent Congress.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In most cases, the Committee only investigates matters that
allegedly occurred while the individual was a House Member,
officer, or employee. However, the Committee has asserted
jurisdiction over alleged conduct that may have violated laws,
regulations, or standards of conduct, which occurred during an
initial successful campaign for the House of Representatives.
Further, the Committee is required to investigate whenever a
Member, officer or employee of the House is convicted of a
felony, regardless of whether the underlying conduct occurred
while the individual was a Member, officer, or employee of the
House.
As a general matter, the Committee's investigations are
conducted either pursuant to authorization by the Chairwoman
and Ranking Member, under Committee Rule 18(a), or pursuant to
a vote by the Committee to impanel an ISC. Most investigations
are conducted pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a). (A self-report
by a Member, officer, or employee of the House under Committee
Rule 18(c) requesting a Committee review of their own conduct
is considered an investigation by the Committee and is
considered in accordance with Committee Rule 18(a).) Even those
investigations that ultimately result in the formation of an
ISC usually begin as Committee Rule 18(a) investigations.
Committee Rule 18(a) and ISC investigations differ only in
process, not substance. In both kinds of investigations,
Committee staff is authorized by Members of the Committee to
interview witnesses, request documents and information, and
engage in other investigative actions. Further, both the
Committee and ISC may authorize subpoenas for documents and
witness testimony.\19\ Members of the Committee can, and do,
attend and participate in voluntary interviews with witnesses
in both 18(a) and ISC investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\The mechanism for issuing a subpoena by the Committee or an ISC
does differ. Where an ISC has been impanelled, it can authorize a
subpoena, to be signed by the Committee's Chairwoman and Ranking
Member. If the investigation is at the Committee Rule 18(a) stage, the
full Committee can vote to issue a subpoena to be signed by the
Chairwoman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee may opt to investigate a matter under
Committee Rule 18(a) rather than an ISC for a number of
reasons. For example, investigating pursuant to Committee Rule
18(a) preserves the Committee's ability both to deploy its
limited resources in the most efficient manner possible, and to
maintain the confidentiality of its investigations. In general,
the Committee publicly announces when it has voted to impanel
an ISC. In contrast, most investigations conducted pursuant to
Committee Rule 18(a) are confidential. Maintaining the
confidentiality of investigations minimizes the risk of
interference and protects the identities of complainants.
Indeed, in recent investigations, employees of a Member have
brought allegations of misconduct to the Committee when they
have remained in the employ of the Member and faced
intimidation or reprisal.\20\ Maintaining a confidential
investigation also avoids unnecessarily tarnishing a Member's
reputation before a determination of wrongdoing has been made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\See, e.g., Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations
Relating to Representative Laura Richardson, H. Rept. 112-642, 112th
Cong. 2d Sess. (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that an investigation is conducted in a
confidential manner does not preclude the Committee from making
a public statement at the end of the investigation. For
example, in recent Congresses, the Committee has issued public
reports to the House and/or letters of reproval in a number of
investigative matters that were initiated by the Committee and
that had not previously been publicly disclosed by the
Committee.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\See, e.g., Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations
Relating to Elizabeth Esty, H. Rept 115-1093, 115th Cong. 2d Sess.
(2018); Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative David McKinley, H. Rept. 114-795, 114th Cong. 2d Sess.
(2016); Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Phil Gingrey, H. Rept. 113-664, 113th Cong. 2d Sess.
(2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether the Committee investigates a matter under Committee
Rule 18(a) or through an ISC, by rule, the Committee may choose
to exercise its investigative authority in several different
scenarios.\22\ However, most Committee investigations begin
when the Committee, on its own initiative, undertakes an
investigation. In the 115th Congress, the Committee commenced
or continued investigative fact-gathering regarding 56 separate
investigative matters, most of which were begun at the
Committee's initiative. Those matters also included referrals
from the OCE. In the 115th Congress, the OCE referred 14
matters to the Committee, 12 with a recommendation for further
review and 2 with a recommendation that all of the allegations
be dismissed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Specifically, the Committee may exercise its investigative
authority when: (1) information offered as a complaint by a Member of
the House of Representatives is transmitted directly to the Committee;
(2) information offered as a complaint by an individual not a Member of
the House is transmitted to the Committee, provided that a Member of
the House certifies in writing that such Member believes the
information is submitted in good faith and warrants the review and
consideration of the Committee; (3) the Committee, on its own
initiative, undertakes an investigation; (4) a Member, officer, or
employee is convicted in a Federal, State, or local court of a felony;
(5) the House of Representatives, by resolution, authorizes or directs
the Committee to undertake an inquiry or investigation; or (6) a
referral from the OCE is transmitted to the Committee. See Committee
Rule 14(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 115th Congress, the Committee issued reprovals in
four matters, one following an investigation conducted by an
ISC. Including those four matters, since 2008, the Committee
has recommended that the House issue a censure in one matter,
recommended in another matter that the House issue a reprimand,
and issued 14 reprovals. Nine of those resolutions followed
investigations initiated by the Committee under its own
authority, while seven of those resolutions followed
recommendations by the OCE that the Committee review the
allegations.
The OCE is an independent office within the House created
by a House resolution in the 110th Congress after the release
of a report of the Democratic Members of the Special Ethics
Task Force on Ethics Enforcement (Task Force Report).\23\
According to the Task Force Report, the OCE Board has the
responsibility to review information on allegations of
misconduct by Members, officers, and employees of the House and
make recommendations to the Committee for the Committee's
official consideration and action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, 110th Cong., Report
of the Democratic Members of the Special Task Force on Ethics
Enforcement (Comm. Print 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two OCE Board members may initiate a review by notifying
all other OCE Board members in writing. The OCE Board then has
30 calendar days to consider the matter in a preliminary review
phase and may vote to either terminate the review or progress
to the second-phase review. Once in the second phase, the OCE
Board has 45 calendar days (with a possible one-time extension
of 14 days) to complete consideration of the matter and refer
it to the Committee with a recommendation for dismissal,
further review, or as unresolved due to a tie vote. The OCE
Board's referral may not contain any conclusions regarding the
validity of the allegations upon which it is based or the guilt
or innocence of the individual who is the subject of the
review. The Task Force believed that ``the timeline
requirements instituted by the new process are critical:
matters will spend at most three months under consideration by
the Board of the OCE before being referred to the Committee for
resolution.''\24\ The Task Force considered whether to give the
OCE either direct or indirect subpoena power. But the Task
Force Report ultimately decided not to give the OCE subpoena
power based on a number of factors. Instead, the Task Force
Report stated that the Board's referral may include
recommendations for the issuance of subpoenas by the Committee
where Members feel it appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Id. at 14. The 14 OCE referrals received by the Committee in
the 115th Congress were transmitted an average of 120 days after the
start of the preliminary review phase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ethics process has not undergone any significant
changes since the creation of the OCE. The Task Force Report
recommended an ongoing review of the ethics process. In the
spirit of that recommendation for ongoing review, the Committee
held extensive meetings with the OCE. Those meetings were
productive and identified several ways the Committee and the
OCE could increase the fairness, efficiency, transparency, and
accuracy of the ethics process.
When the Committee receives a referral from the OCE, it is
required to review the referral ``without prejudice or
presumptions as to the merit of the allegations.''\25\ The
Committee thus makes an independent determination about how to
proceed in the matter based on the information before the
Committee, which may include not only the OCE referral and
supporting documents provided to the Committee by the OCE, but
other information. It is not uncommon that the Committee's
review will require more than 90 days, because of the need to
review documents, interview witnesses, and/or assess the legal
significance of evidence, among other investigative steps. Some
investigations may require the review of tens of thousands, if
not hundreds of thousands, of pages of documents. For example,
in the 113th Congress one investigation that spanned multiple
Congresses required the Committee to review more than 220,000
pages of documents to resolve the matter.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Committee Rule 17A(a).
\26\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Don Young, H. Rept. 113-487, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. at 2
(2014). That investigation was begun at the Committee's initiative
under Committee Rule 18(a). Subsequently, the Committee established an
ISC to continue the investigation. Ultimately, the Committee issued a
public report and letter of reproval to the Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some instances, the Committee may be asked to defer its
investigation by another law enforcement entity, generally the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The Committee typically
honors such requests, barring unusual circumstances. For one
thing, parallel investigations pose the risk of compromising
one another. Also, for the most serious criminal violations,
only DOJ can pursue a prosecution to seek imprisonment, the
most serious possible consequence for a violation of law.\27\
Provided that the Committee still retains jurisdiction, a
decision by the Committee to defer does not preclude the
Committee from continuing its investigation later, regardless
of the outcome of the other entity's investigation. In
addition, a decision by the Committee to defer an investigation
does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or
reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee. In the 115th
Congress, the Committee did opt to defer several investigations
at the request of DOJ, as described further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\DOJ will not lose jurisdiction to continue an investigation and
pursue prosecution, if it determines that is appropriate, in the event
that a Member or employee leaves the House, whether through resignation
or defeat for reelection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee publicly addressed 29 investigative matters
during the 115th Congress. In addition to confidential matters,
the Committee also carried over several public matters from the
114th Congress. In the 115th Congress, the Committee continued
to address the matters concerning Representatives Blake
Farenthold, Luis Gutierrez, Duncan Hunter, Cathy McMorris
Rodgers, Mark Meadows, Markwayne Mullin, Robert Pittenger,
Bobby Rush, and Roger Williams. A chronological overview of
public statements made by the Committee in the 115th Congress
regarding investigative matters follows.
On March 23, 2017, the Committee announced that, pursuant
to Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review
allegations referred by the OCE regarding Representative Duncan
Hunter. Following precedent, the Committee unanimously voted to
defer consideration of its investigation in response to a
request from DOJ.
On April 6, 2017, the Committee announced that, pursuant to
Committee Rule 18(a), it would review public allegations that
Representative Devin Nunes may have made unauthorized
disclosures of classified information.
On August 1, 2017, the Committee transmitted a Report to
the House regarding allegations relating to Representative Ben
Ray Lujan.
On August 1, 2017, the Committee transmitted a Report to
the House regarding allegations relating to Representative
Roger Williams.
On August 9, 2017, the Committee announced that, pursuant
to Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review
allegations referred by the OCE that Representative John
Conyers, Jr. retained an employee who did not perform duties
commensurate with the compensation the employee received and
certified that the compensation met applicable House standards.
On August 9, 2017, the Committee announced that, pursuant
to Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review
allegations referred by the OCE that House employee Michael
Collins received outside earned income in excess of amounts
permitted by House rules and federal law.
On September 11, 2017, the Committee announced that,
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review
allegations referred by the OCE that Delegate Madeleine
Bordallo may have rented a home she owns to the Japanese
Consulate for profit; may have received free lodging, meals and
amenities at a resort; may have used official funds to pay for
her lodging and meals at a resort; and may have used her
congressional staff to perform personal services.
On September 14, 2017, the Committee transmitted a Report
to the House regarding the arrest during a protest of
Representative Luis V. Gutierrez.
On October 13, 2017, the Committee announced that, pursuant
to Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review
allegations referred by the OCE that Representative Chris
Collins may have shared material nonpublic information in the
purchase of stock in a company for which he served on the
board; may have purchased discounted company stock that was
offered to him based on his status as a Member of the House;
and may have attended a meeting with a federal agency in which
he requested actions to assist his company.
On November 21, 2017, the Committee announced that,
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), it would review public
allegations that Representative John Conyers, Jr. may have
engaged in sexual harassment of members of his staff,
discriminated against certain staff on the basis of age, and
used official resources for impermissible personal purposes.
On December 1, 2017, the Committee announced that it had
requested the (now named the Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights) provide the Committee with all records in its
possession related to any claims of sexual harassment,
discrimination, retaliation, or any other employment practice
prohibited by the CAA involving alleged conduct by any current
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee
of the House.
On December 7, 2017, the Committee announced the closure of
its review related to Representative Devin Nunes.
On December 7, 2017, the Committee unanimously voted to
establish an ISC with regard to allegations that Representative
Trent Franks engaged in conduct that constitutes sexual
harassment and/or retaliation for opposing sexual harassment.
On December 7, 2017, the Committee unanimously voted to
establish an ISC with regard to allegations that Representative
Blake Farenthold, or any person acting on his behalf, sexually
harassed a former member of his staff, discriminated against
her on the basis of her gender, and retaliated against her for
complaining of discriminatory conduct, and allegations that
Representative Farenthold made inappropriate statements to
other members of his official staff.
On December 15, 2017, the Committee announced that,
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), the Committee would review
allegations that Representative Ruben Kihuen may have engaged
in sexual harassment.
On December 21, 2017, the Committee unanimously voted to
expand the jurisdiction of the ISC's inquiry regarding
Representative Blake Farenthold to include allegations that
Representative Farenthold, or any person acting on his behalf,
sexually harassed, discriminated against, or retaliated against
any member of his congressional staff while they were employed
in his office; used official resources, including staff time,
to benefit his congressional campaigns; required members of his
congressional staff to work on his congressional campaigns; and
made false statements or omissions in testimony to the
Committee.
On December 21, 2017, the Committee unanimously voted to
establish an ISC with regard to allegations that Representative
Ruben Kihuen engaged in conduct that constitutes sexual
harassment.
On December 21, 2017, the Committee transmitted a Report to
the House regarding the arrests during a protest of
Representative Judy Chu and Representative Luis Gutierrez.
On January 22, 2018, the Committee announced that, pursuant
to Committee Rules 18(a) and 18(c), it would review allegations
that Representative Patrick Meehan may have engaged in sexual
harassment and misused official resources.
On February 6, 2018, the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of
the Committee released a statement in support of legislation to
reform the CAA.
On February 27, 2018, the Committee unanimously voted to
establish an ISC with regards to allegations that
Representative Patrick Meehan, and/or his former Chief of
Staff, Mr. Brian Schubert, engaged in conduct that constitutes
sexual harassment, retaliation, or misuse of official
resources.
On March 22, 2018, the Committee transmitted a Report to
the House regarding allegations relating to Representative
Bobby L. Rush.
On March 22, 2018, the Committee transmitted a Report to
the House regarding allegations relating to Representative Luis
V. Gutierrez.
On March 23, 2018, the Committee announced that it
continued to defer consideration of the matter regarding
Representative Duncan Hunter in response to a request from DOJ.
On May 24, 2018, the Committee released a statement
discussing the matters of Representative Blake Farenthold and
Representative Patrick Meehan, and calling for passage of
legislation to reform the CAA.
On April 4, 2018, the Committee announced that, pursuant to
Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review allegations
referred by the OCE that Representative John J. Duncan, Jr.
converted campaign funds for personal use and failed to ensure
his campaign committee complied with applicable laws regarding
contributions from employees.
On April 12, 2018, the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the
Committee, in consultation and with unanimous agreement of the
full Committee, released a statement regarding the
investigation into allegations regarding Representative Blake
Farenthold, noting that Representative Farenthold had resigned
from Congress and, accordingly, the ISC no longer had
jurisdiction over him and the Committee would take no further
action.
On June 28, 2018, the Committee announced it had
unanimously voted to establish an ISC to investigate
allegations that Representative David Schweikert, and/or his
Chief of Staff, Mr. Oliver Schwab, misused official resources;
Representative Schweikert accepted improper campaign
contributions from Mr. Schwab and other individuals employed in
his congressional office; Mr. Schwab received outside earned
income in excess of amounts permitted by House Rules and
federal law; and that Mr. Schwab failed to file full and
complete financial disclosure statements.
On July 26, 2018, the Committee transmitted a Report to the
House regarding the arrest during a protest of Representative
Pramila Jayapal.
On August 10, 2018, the Committee transmitted a Report to
the House regarding allegations relating to Representative
Markwayne Mullin.
On September 6, 2018, the Committee announced that,
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(e)(2), it had unanimously voted
to establish an ISC to review allegations that Representative
Chris Collins engaged in unlawful conspiracy, securities fraud,
and wire fraud; purchased discount stock that was not available
to the public; took official actions on behalf of a company in
which he had a significant financial interest; and made false
statements to, withheld information from, or otherwise misled
federal investigators. Following precedent, the Committee
unanimously voted to defer consideration on its investigation
in response to a request from DOJ.
On September 6, 2018, the Committee announced that,
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(e)(2), it had unanimously voted
to establish an ISC to review allegations that Representative
Duncan Hunter engaged in unlawful conspiracy, fraud,
falsification of campaign finance records, and prohibited use
of campaign contributions. Following precedent, the Committee
unanimously voted to defer consideration on its investigation
in response to a request from DOJ.
On November 16, 2018, the Committee transmitted a Report to
the House regarding allegations relating to Representative Mark
Meadows.
On November 16, 2018, the Committee transmitted a Report to
the House regarding allegations relating to Representative
Ruben Kihuen.
On December 4, 2018, the Committee announced that, pursuant
to Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review
allegations referred by the OCE that Representative Thomas
Garrett used his congressional staff to perform unofficial work
and personal errands.
On December 17, 2018, the Committee announced that,
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review
allegations referred by the OCE that Representative Rod Blum
omitted required information from his financial disclosure
reports, permitted the use of official resources to support a
private business in which he held a financial interest, and
permitted a private business in which he held a financial
interest to employ fair or deceptive trade practices.
On December 20, 2018, the Committee transmitted a Report to
the House regarding allegations relating to Representative
Elizabeth Esty.
On December 20, 2018, the Committee unanimously voted to
expand the jurisdiction of the ISC's inquiry regarding
Representative David Schweikert to include allegations that
Representative Schweikert used official resources to benefit
his campaign or pressured congressional staff to perform
political activity, authorized compensation to an employee who
did not perform duties commensurate with his House employment,
received loans or gifts from a congressional employee, and
omitted required information from his annual House financial
disclosure statements and Federal Election Commission candidate
committee reports.
On January 2, 2019, the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of
the Committee released a statement regarding Representative
Thomas Garrett.
These investigative matters are described in more detail
below, in alphabetical order. Copies of all of the Committee's
public statements related to these matters are included as
Appendix IV to this Report. Those statements, along with any
attachments referenced in the statements, are available on the
Committee's website. All of the Committee's Reports as filed
with the House are also available on the Committee's website.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Rod Blum
On July 19, 2018, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative Rod Blum may have violated
federal law, House rules, and other standards of conduct when
he omitted required information from his financial disclosure
reports; permitted the use of official House resources to
support or promote a private business in which he holds a
financial interest; and permitted a private business in which
he holds a financial interest to employ unfair or deceptive
trade practices. The Committee released the OCE Report and
Findings, along with Representative Blum's response, on
December 17, 2018, and noted in a public statement that the
Committee was continuing to review the allegations pursuant to
Committee Rule 18(a).
At the conclusion of the 115th Congress the Committee had
not completed its investigation into this matter.
Representative Blum lost his bid for reelection to the House,
and the Committee will no longer have jurisdiction over him
after January 3, 2019.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Delegate Madeleine Bordallo
On June 12, 2017, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Delegate Madeleine Bordallo may have violated
federal law, House rules, and other standards of conduct when
she received rental profit from the Japanese Consulate in
Hagatna, Guam, for property she owns in Tamuning, Guam;
accepted gifts of free lodging, meals and amenities at the
Outrigger Guam Beach Resort; and used official funds to pay for
lodging and meals at the Outrigger Guam Beach Resort while in
her home district. The OCE also reviewed an allegation that
Delegate Bordallo used official resources for personal purposes
to the extent that her congressional staff, during official
time, performed personal services for her in connection with
her rental property and the Miss World Guam Pageant, but the
OCE recommended the Committee dismiss that allegation. The
Committee released the OCE Report and Findings, along with
Delegate Bordallo's response, on September 11, 2017, and noted
in a public statement that the Committee was continuing to
review the allegations pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a).
At the conclusion of the 115th Congress the Committee had
not completed its investigation into this matter. Delegate
Bordallo lost her bid for reelection to the House and the
Committee will not have jurisdiction over her after January 3,
2019.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Chris Collins
On July 14, 2017, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative Chris Collins may have violated
federal law, House rules, and other standards of conduct by
sharing material nonpublic information in the purchase of stock
of a company for which he served on the board, and by taking
official actions or requesting official actions that would
assist a single entity in which he had a significant financial
interest. The OCE also reviewed allegations that Representative
Collins purchased discounted stock that was not available to
the public and that was offered to him based on his status as a
Member of the House, in violation of House rules, standards of
conduct, and federal law, but the OCE recommended the Committee
dismiss that allegation. The Committee released the OCE Report
and Findings, along with Representative Collins's response, on
October 12, 2017, and noted in a public statement that the
Committee was continuing to review the allegations pursuant to
Committee Rule 18(a).
On August 8, 2018, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York filed an indictment against Representative
Collins in federal district court, charging him with
conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, and making false
statements. On September 6, 2018, the Committee unanimously
voted to establish an ISC to determine whether Representative
Collins violated the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule,
regulation, or other applicable standard of conduct in the
performance of his duties or the discharge of his
responsibilities, with respect to allegations that he engaged
in unlawful conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud;
purchased discount stock that was not available to the public;
took official actions on behalf of a company in which he had a
significant financial interest; and made false statements to,
withheld information from, or otherwise misled federal
investigators. The Committee, following precedent, unanimously
recommended to the ISC that it defer action on its
investigation in response to a request from DOJ. Proceedings in
federal court are pending.
At the conclusion of the 115th Congress, the Committee
continues to defer its investigation of this matter at the
request of DOJ. Representative Collins was reelected to the
House for the 116th Congress.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Michael Collins
On May 11, 2017, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Michael Collins, an employee of the House, may
have violated House rules and other standards of conduct when
he improperly received compensation for practicing a profession
that involved a fiduciary relationship with a campaign
committee and for serving as an officer to a campaign
committee, and that Mr. Collins may have received outside
income in excess of the outside earned income limit applicable
to senior staff. The Committee released the OCE Report and
Findings, along with Mr. Collins' response, on August 9, 2017,
and noted in a public statement that the Committee was
continuing to review the allegations pursuant to Committee Rule
18(a).
At the conclusion of the 115th Congress, the Committee had
not completed its investigation into this matter. Mr. Collins
remains employed by the House for the 116th Congress.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative John Conyers,
Jr.
On May 11, 2017, the OCE transmitted to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative John Conyers, Jr. may have
violated federal law, House rules, and other standards of
conduct when he paid compensation to his former Chief of Staff
during a period of time in 2016 in which she may not have
performed any official work for his congressional office. On
August 6, 2017, the Committee released the OCE Report and
Findings, along with Representative Conyers' response, and
noted in a public statement that it was continuing to review
the allegations pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a).
On November 21, 2017, the Chairwoman and Ranking Member
announced that the Committee was aware of public allegations
that Representative Conyers may have engaged in sexual
harassment of members of his staff, discriminated against
certain staff on the basis of age, and used official resources
for impermissible personal purposes. Pursuant to Committee Rule
18(a), the Committee began an investigation regarding those
allegations. On December 4, 2017, Representative Conyers
announced his resignation from the House, effective December 5,
2017, at which time the Committee lost jurisdiction to continue
its investigations.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative John J. Duncan,
Jr.
On January 4, 2018, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative John J. Duncan, Jr.'s campaign
committee and leadership PAC expended funds that were not
attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes, and
Representative Duncan failed to ensure that his campaign
committee complied with applicable laws regarding contributions
from employees, in violation of federal law, House rules, and
other standards of conduct.
On April 4, 2018, the Committee released the OCE Report and
Findings, along with Representative Duncan's response, 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 115th Congress, the Committee
had not completed its investigation into this matter.
Representative Duncan did not run for reelection to the House
for the 116th Congress, and the Committee will not have
jurisdiction over him after January 3, 2019.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Elizabeth
Esty\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Elizabeth Esty, H. Rept. 115-1093, 115th Cong. 2d Sess. (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 2, 2018, Representative Esty sent a letter to the
Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the Committee requesting that
the Committee, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(c), review the
circumstances surrounding her dismissal of her former Chief of
Staff, Tony Baker, and determine whether there was any
wrongdoing on her part. Representative Esty terminated Mr.
Baker's employment in her office in 2016 pursuant to a
confidential severance and release agreement after
Representative Esty conducted an investigation into his
behavior, including allegations that he harassed and abused a
former female staffer.
The Committee investigated Representative Esty's handling
of Mr. Baker's conduct and specifically considered whether
Representative Esty failed to take appropriate steps to prevent
and correct Mr. Baker's misconduct, or improperly paid Mr.
Baker a lump sum severance payment upon his termination. The
Committee concluded that, while Representative Esty could have
better handled the investigation into Mr. Baker's behavior and
his termination, her actions did not warrant any further action
by the Committee. The Committee noted Representative Esty
sought and relied upon legal guidance from the Office of House
Employment Counsel.
On December 20, 2018, the Committee submitted a Report to
the House of Representatives describing the facts and its
findings in this matter, as well as its determination to take
no further action in this matter.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Blake
Farenthold
On June 29, 2015, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings regarding whether Representative Blake
Farenthold sexually harassed a former member of his staff,
discriminated against her on the basis of her gender, and
retaliated against her for complaining about the alleged
unlawful treatment in violation of federal law, House Rule
XXIII, clause 9, and the CAA. In its referral, the OCE
unanimously recommended the Committee dismiss the matter. On
September 28, 2015, the Committee released the OCE Report and
announced, due to the seriousness of the allegations referred
by the OCE, it would continue to review the allegations under
Committee Rule 18(a).
On December 7, 2017, the Committee announced it had voted
to establish an ISC with jurisdiction to investigate the
allegations referred by the OCE, as well as allegations that
Representative Farenthold made inappropriate statements to
other members of his official staff. The Committee determined
to take that action based upon a discretionary review of the
allegations, as well as the evidence obtained pursuant to
Committee Rule 18(a).
On December 21, 2017, the Committee voted unanimously to
expand the jurisdiction of the ISC's inquiry to include: (1)
allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination, or
retaliation by Representative Farenthold, or any person acting
on his behalf, toward any member of his congressional staff
while they were employed in his congressional office; (2)
allegations that Representative Farenthold's congressional
staff may have used House resources, including staff time, to
benefit his congressional campaigns; (3) allegations that
Representative Farenthold, or any person acting on his behalf,
may have required members of his congressional staff to work on
his congressional campaigns; and (4) allegations that
Representative Farenthold may have made false statements or
omissions in testimony to the Committee.
The ISC expeditiously investigated the allegations within
its jurisdiction. In addition to reviewing the evidence
obtained pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), the ISC issued and
received responses to seven requests for information, reviewed
approximately 12,000 pages of documents, and interviewed six
witnesses. The ISC provided an opportunity for Representative
Farenthold to appear for a voluntary interview, but he declined
to do so in the time frame offered by the ISC; he did present a
written statement regarding the allegations.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 26(c), on March 30, 2018, the
ISC informed Representative Farenthold it had scheduled a vote
on a Statement of Alleged Violation in this matter, to occur on
April 11, 2018.
On April 6, 2018, Representative Farenthold resigned from
the House, at which time the ISC and the Committee lost
jurisdiction to continue the investigation.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Trent Franks
On December 7, 2017, the Committee unanimously voted to
establish an ISC to determine whether Representative Trent
Franks violated federal law, House rules, and other standards
of conduct with respect to allegations that he engaged in
conduct that constituted sexual harassment and/or retaliation
for opposing sexual harassment.
Representative Franks resigned from the House on December
8, 2017, at which time the ISC and the Committee lost
jurisdiction to continue its investigation.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Thomas Garrett
On June 6, 2018, the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the
Committee authorized an investigation, pursuant to Committee
Rule 18(a), into allegations that Representative Thomas Garrett
may have improperly required, requested, or allowed members of
his official staff to perform non-official, personal tasks for
his or his wife's personal benefit. While the Committee's
investigation was underway, on June 14, 2018, the OCE informed
the Committee that it had initiated a preliminary review
regarding Representative Garrett's use of official resources.
On September 5, 2018, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative Garrett misused official
resources by having congressional staff perform unofficial work
and personal errands on his behalf. The OCE Report and Findings
recommended dismissal of allegations that an employee in
Representative Garrett's congressional office may have
performed personal errands on his behalf while being paid by
his congressional campaign committee.
On December 4, 2018, the Committee released the OCE Report
and Findings, along with Representative Garrett's response. On
January 2, 2019, the Chairwoman and Ranking Member issued a
public statement and released a report of the Committee's
nonpartisan, professional staff providing further detail on
Committee staff's review of the allegations and their factual
findings. Representative Garrett did not run for reelection to
the House for the 116th Congress, and the Committee will not
have jurisdiction over him after January 3, 2019.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Luis V.
Gutierrez (Protest Arrest)\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, H. Rept. 115-310, 115th Cong. 1st
Sess. (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the requirements of Committee Rule
18(e)(2), the Committee convened on September 13, 2017, to
consider the arrest of Representative Luis V. Gutierrez for
incommoding or unlawful assembly during a protest outside the
White House in Washington, D.C., on August 15, 2017.
Representative Gutierrez paid a $50 fine and was released
following his arrest. The legal proceedings related to
Representative Gutierrez's arrest were thus resolved.
After reviewing and considering this matter, the Committee
voted against impaneling an ISC related to the conduct of
Representative Gutierrez. In reaching this decision, the
Committee considered the scope and nature of the violations,
and determined it to be one for which review by an ISC was not
warranted.
On September 14, 2017, the Committee submitted a Report to
the House describing the facts and its findings regarding this
matter.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Luis V.
Gutierrez (Use of Official Funds)\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, H. Rept. 115-617, 115th Cong. 2d
Sess. (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 4, 2013, the OCE forwarded to the Committee in
the 113th Congress a Report and Findings in which it
recommended further review of allegations that Representative
Luis V. Gutierrez impermissibly used his Members'
Representational Allowance (MRA) to pay his former Chief of
Staff Doug Scofield, through his firm Scofield Communications,
for services that may not be paid for using MRA funds. The OCE
found substantial reason to believe Representative Gutierrez
used funds from his MRA for an impermissible purpose--to retain
Mr. Scofield to provide services to his congressional office
that more closely resembled those provided by an employee or
consultant, rather than a contractor--in violation of federal
law, CHA regulations, and House rules. The OCE also discussed
an allegation that Representative Gutierrez may have
impermissibly granted special favors or benefits to entities
that retained Scofield Communications as a lobbyist while the
firm contracted with the Member's office, but did not find
substantial reason to believe the allegation.
On May 5, 2014, the Committee released the OCE Report and
Findings, along with Representative Gutierrez's response, and
noted in a public statement that the Committee was continuing
to review the allegations pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a).
The Committee's extensive investigation included interviews
of sixteen witnesses, including current and former members of
Representative Gutierrez's staff, current and former CHA staff
who consulted Representative Gutierrez's staff on the Scofield
contract, Mr. Scofield, and Representative Gutierrez. The
Committee also collected over 10,000 pages of documents,
including submissions by Representative Gutierrez.
On March 22, 2018, the Committee in the 115th Congress
unanimously voted to release a Report, which served as a
reproval of Representative Gutierrez for his conduct.
In its Report, the Committee found no evidence that Mr.
Scofield received special privileges on behalf of his firm's
clients, or that Mr. Scofield ever lobbied Representative
Gutierrez or his staff on behalf of any Scofield Communications
client.
The Committee found that, even though an overwhelming
majority of the work Mr. Scofield performed did accord with the
terms of Scofield Communications' contract with Representative
Gutierrez's office, Mr. Scofield occasionally performed work
that was either ``legislative'' in nature or otherwise exceeded
the scope of that contract. Thus, the Committee concluded that
Representative Gutierrez impermissibly used MRA funds to pay
Mr. Scofield for some work exceeding the contract's scope, and
the limits of what a contractor retained to provide services to
a Member's congressional office may do, as defined by CHA. The
Committee also concluded that the resulting violations, though
unintentional, were significant enough to warrant a reproval.
In its Report, the Committee noted that Representative
Gutierrez was required to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for
misspent MRA funds. While the Committee was unable to quantify
the impermissible work or the associated MRA payments with
exact precision, the Committee calculated a reimbursement
amount, based on conservative estimation, of $9,700, or
approximately three percent of the total payments from
Representative Gutierrez's MRA to Scofield Communications from
September 2007 until the contract's termination in June 2013.
In December 2018, Representative Gutierrez's counsel informed
the Committee that Representative Gutierrez fully intends to
repay the amount and has taken steps towards effectuating that
repayment.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Duncan Hunter
On August 31, 2016, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative Duncan Hunter may have violated
federal law, House rules, and other standards of conduct by
converting campaign funds to personal use. On March 23, 2017,
the Committee announced that, following precedent, the
Committee had voted unanimously to defer its review at the
request of DOJ. The Committee made the OCE Report, but not its
Findings, public at that time. On March 23, 2018, the Committee
announced that it was continuing to defer its consideration of
the matter at the request of DOJ.
On August 21, 2018, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of California filed an indictment against
Representative Hunter in federal district court charging him
with conspiracy, wire fraud, falsifying campaign finance
records, prohibited use of campaign contributions, and false
statements. On September 6, 2018, the Committee unanimously
voted to establish an ISC with jurisdiction to investigate
allegations that Representative Hunter engaged in unlawful
conspiracy, fraud, falsification of campaign finance records,
and prohibited use of campaign contributions. The Committee,
following precedent, unanimously recommended to the ISC that it
defer consideration of the matter in response to the request
from DOJ.
At the conclusion of the 115th Congress, the Committee
continues to defer its investigation of this matter at the
request of DOJ. Representative Hunter was reelected to the
House for the 116th Congress.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Ruben
Kihuen\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Ruben Kihuen, H. Rept. 115-1041, 115th Cong. 2d Sess.
(2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 21, 2017, the Committee unanimously voted to
establish an ISC to investigate allegations that Representative
Ruben Kihuen engaged in conduct that constitutes sexual
harassment, in violation of House Rules, law, regulations, or
other standards of conduct.
Over a nine-month period, the ISC reviewed over 2,700 pages
of documents and interviewed twelve witnesses, including
several women who publicly raised allegations against
Representative Kihuen, corroborating witnesses, members of
Representative Kihuen's campaign and congressional staffs,
character witnesses proffered by Representative Kihuen, and
Representative Kihuen himself. On September 26, 2018, the ISC
transmitted a Report to the full Committee finding that
Representative Kihuen made persistent and unwanted advances
toward women who were required to interact with him as part of
their professional responsibilities, and recommending that the
Committee reprove Representative Kihuen.
On November 15, 2018, the Committee voted to adopt the
ISC's Report and release its own Report, with both serving as a
reproval of Representative Kihuen. On the basis of
Representative Kihuen's conduct towards employees of a firm
working for his re-election campaign in 2017 and a staffer on
his first successful campaign for Congress in 2016, the
Committee determined that Representative Kihuen acted in a
manner that did not reflect creditably upon the House and was
contrary to the spirit of House rules prohibiting sexual
harassment, in violation of House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 and 2.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Pramila
Jayapal\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Pramila Jayapal, H. Rept. 115-876, 115th Cong. 2d Sess.
(2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the requirements of and Committee Rule
18(e)(2), the Committee convened on July 25, 2018, to consider
the arrest of Representative Pramila Jayapal for crowding,
obstructing, or incommoding, during a protest inside a Senate
Office Building in Washington, D.C., on June 28, 2018.
Representative Jayapal forfeited a $50 collateral payment,
whereupon the local court disposed of the charge. The legal
proceedings related to Representative Jayapal's arrest were
thus resolved.
After reviewing and considering this matter, the Committee
voted against impaneling an ISC related to the conduct of
Representative Jayapal. In reaching this decision, the
Committee considered the scope and nature of the violations,
and determined it to be one for which review by an ISC was not
warranted.
On July 26, 2018, the Committee submitted a Report to the
House describing the facts and its findings regarding this
matter.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Ben Ray
Lujan\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Ben Ray Lujan, H. Rept. 115-272, 115th Cong. 1st Sess.
(2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 11, 2017, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative Ben Ray Lujan may have violated
House rules, laws, and other standards of conduct by allegedly
conducting campaign or political activity from the House floor,
soliciting a campaign contribution from a federal building,
and/or using an image of a House floor proceeding for campaign
or political purposes.
The Committee investigated the allegations and concluded
that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations
that Representative Lujan engaged in campaign or political
activity, or solicited campaign contributions, from the House
floor or any other federal building. The Committee did find
that Representative Lujan's campaign consultant used an image
of House proceedings from the House recording system, without
Representative Lujan's knowledge, which is a technical
violation of House Rule V, clause 2(c)(1). While Members are
ultimately responsible for actions taken on their behalf by
third parties, the Committee concluded that given the limited
nature of the violation, as well as Representative Lujan's
subsequent efforts to prevent any recurrence of the violation,
a sanction was not warranted. Accordingly, the Committee
unanimously voted to dismiss the matter and to take no further
action.
On August 1, 2017, the Committee submitted a Report to the
House describing the facts and its findings in this matter, as
well as its determination to take no further action in this
matter.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Cathy McMorris
Rodgers
On December 23, 2013, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers may have
violated federal law, House rules, and other standards of
conduct by using House resources for campaign activity and
combining campaign and House resources for her campaign for a
House leadership position. The Committee released the OCE
Report and Findings, along with Representative McMorris
Rodgers' response, on March 24, 2014, 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 115th Congress the Committee
had not completed its investigation into this matter.
Representative McMorris Rodgers was reelected to the House for
the 116th Congress.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Mark
Meadows\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Mark Meadows, H. Rept. 115-1042, 115th Cong. 2d Sess.
(2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 26, 2015, OCE notified the Committee that it had
begun a preliminary review of allegations regarding
Representative Mark Meadows and payments he made to his former
Chief of Staff, Kenny West from May 21, 2015, when Mr. West
resigned from Representative Meadows' office through August 15,
2015. On November 18, 2015, in the 114th Congress,
Representative Meadows sent a letter to the then-Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Committee requesting the Committee review
his decision to continue paying Mr. West during the same time
period. Representative Meadows also told the Committee he
declined to cooperate with a concurrent review the OCE was
conducting into this issue.
On March 18, 2016, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative Meadows violated federal law,
House rules and other standards of conduct when he retained an
employee who did not perform duties commensurate with the
compensation the employee received, and certified that the
compensation met applicable House standards. The OCE Report and
Findings included evidence that, in October 2014, several
female employees in Representative Meadows' congressional
office made complaints to him of inappropriate behavior by Mr.
West, including unwanted touching, inappropriate staring and
unprofessional comments. Following those reports,
Representative Meadows restricted Mr. West from his
congressional offices and from contacting female employees.
However, Mr. West remained Chief of Staff until April 2015 when
his title was changed to Senior Advisor. Despite the change in
his title and loss of supervisory responsibilities, Mr. West
continued to receive the same salary from the House until
August 15, 2015, a portion of which was ``severance.''
On August 17, 2016, the Committee released the OCE Report
and Findings, along with Representative Meadows's response, and
noted in a public statement that the Committee was continuing
to review the allegations pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a).
During the 114th and 115th Congresses, the Committee
reviewed whether Representative Meadows violated any federal
law, House rules, or other standards of conduct when he
continued to pay Mr. West his full salary after his female
staff made allegations of inappropriate behavior against Mr.
West. The Committee also considered whether Representative
Meadows exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly
correct Mr. West's inappropriate behavior after he learned
about it.
On November 15, 2018, the Committee voted unanimously to
submit a Report to the House which served as a reproval of
Representative Meadows for his conduct. In its Report, the
Committee found that, during the time Mr. West was Chief of
Staff after the allegations had been made against him, it was
generally within Representative Meadows' discretion as the
employing Member to change the terms and conditions of Mr.
West's employment. However, the Committee found that when Mr.
West was demoted to Senior Advisor, and when he was being paid
``severance,'' his duties were not commensurate with his pay,
in violation of House Rule XXIII, clause 8. The Committee
directed Representative Meadows to reimburse the U.S. Treasury
for the impermissible overpayment of Mr. West in the amount of
$40,625.02, in accordance with House regulations and Committee
precedent.
With regard to Representative Meadows' handling of the
alleged inappropriate behavior in his office, the Committee
found Representative Meadows did not know about Mr. West's
behavior until October 2014, when several of his female staff
made complaints to him. In its Report, the Committee noted once
Representative Meadows became aware of Mr. West's behavior, he
should have done more to address that behavior and prevent it
from occurring again in the future. The Committee found that
while Representative Meadows took some important immediate
steps after learning about the inappropriate behavior, such as
prohibiting Mr. West from entering the congressional offices
and contacting female staff, and requesting an independent
investigation, those steps were essentially all he did for
nearly six months. The Committee found that Representative
Meadows was ultimately responsible for ensuring that his office
was free from discrimination and any perception of
discrimination and that he failed to adequately do so, in
violation of clauses 1 and 2 of House Rule XXIII.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Patrick Meehan
On January 20, 2018, Representative Patrick Meehan wrote a
letter to the Committee's Chairwoman, in which he requested
that the Committee review the matter ``[i]n light of the media
reports regarding the settlement reached between his office and
the former employee.'' On January 22, 2018, the Committee
issued a public statement, noting that it had initiated a
review of the allegations against Representative Meehan,
pursuant to Committee Rules 18(a) and 18(c). The statement also
noted that Representative Meehan was no longer a member of the
Committee.
On February 27, 2018, the Committee unanimously voted to
establish an ISC to investigate whether Representative Meehan
and/or his Chief of Staff, Brian Schubert, engaged in conduct
that constituted sexual harassment, retaliation, or misuse of
official resources, in violation of House Rules, law,
regulations, or other standards of conduct. Over the course of
its investigation, the ISC authorized the issuance of three
subpoenas and collected over 100 pages of information,
including communications between Representative Meehan and the
former staffer.
On February 28, 2018, Mr. Schubert resigned from his
employment in the House, at which time the ISC and Committee
lost their jurisdiction over him. On April 27, 2018,
Representative Meehan announced his immediate resignation from
the House, at which time the ISC and Committee lost their
jurisdiction to continue the investigation.
In his official statement announcing his resignation,
Representative Meehan stated he would reimburse the U.S.
Treasury approximately $39,000, within 30 days of his
resignation, for the severance payment made from his MRA to the
former staffer. The Committee subsequently received evidence
from Representative Meehan's counsel that reimbursement of the
severance payment was completed on May 18, 2018.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Markwayne
Mullin\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Markwayne Mullin, H. Rept. 115-898, 115th Cong. 2d Sess.
(2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 23, 2013, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative Markwayne Mullin violated
federal law, House rules and other standards of conduct when he
personally endorsed goods or services provided by companies he
or his family owned; received outside earned income, in excess
of the applicable limits, from those companies; and served as a
director and/or officer of the companies for compensation. The
Committee released the OCE Report and Findings, along with
Representative Mullin's response, on March 24, 2014, and noted
in a public statement that the Committee was continuing to
review the allegations pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a).
On August 10, 2018, the Committee voted to submit a Report
to the House and take no further action against Representative
Mullin. In its Report, the Committee noted the allegations
raised several novel questions regarding the application of
House rules and other standards of conduct to a Member's
efforts to maintain and promote a family business. The
Committee found that Representative Mullin participated in
advertisements on behalf of companies he or his family owned
after he became a Member, and received payments from those
companies during that time. However, the Committee determined
that Representative Mullin made a good faith effort to seek the
Committee's informal guidance on numerous issues with respect
to his family business and, to the extent Representative Mullin
complied with the Committee's advice, it would be inequitable
to subject his conduct to additional review. In its Report, the
Committee noted its belief that the House would be better
served by different guidance with respect to Member
participation in advertisements, and clarified that, going
forward, the Committee's guidance is that a Member should under
no circumstances be actively involved in a personally selling
or endorsing goods or services in which the Member has a
financial interest.\36\ The Committee also reiterated its
longstanding guidance that, if a Member performs personal
services for an S-Corporation business that generate
significant income for the business, including participating in
advertisements, then some part of the payments the Member
receives from the business may be deemed earned income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\On August 24, 2018, the Committee issued a memorandum further
articulating this clarification and expansion of its previous guidance.
See Comm. on Ethics, Guidance on Personal Endorsement or Promotion by
Members of the House of Representatives (Aug. 24, 2018), available at
https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/
Personal%20Endorsement%20Pink%20 Sheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee also determined that an accounting error led
Representative Mullin to inadvertently receive $40,000 from his
former company, after he transferred ownership of that company
to his spouse. The Committee found that, to bring himself into
full compliance with the Committee's guidance, Representative
Mullin must return $40,000 to that company. The Committee found
no evidence that Representative Mullin received compensation
for his service as an officer or director of his family's
companies.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Devin Nunes
On April 6, 2017, the Committee announced that it was aware
of public allegations that Representative Devin Nunes may have
made unauthorized disclosures of classified information, in
violation of House Rules, law, regulations, or other standards
of conduct, and that the Committee, pursuant to Committee Rule
18(a), was investigating and gathering more information
regarding these allegations. In the course of this
investigation, the Committee sought the analysis of
Representative Nunes's statements by classification experts in
the Intelligence Community. Based solely on the conclusion of
those classification experts that Representative Nunes's
statements did not disclose classified information, the
Committee closed its investigation on December 7, 2017.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Robert
Pittenger
On November 18, 2015, the Committee unanimously voted to
impanel an ISC with jurisdiction to determine whether
Representative Robert Pittenger violated the Code of Official
Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other applicable
standard of conduct in the performance of his duties or the
discharge of his responsibilities, with respect to allegations
that he received compensation for his involvement with a
fiduciary business, a real estate investment firm known as
Pittenger Land Investments, Inc. The Committee, following
precedent, unanimously recommended to the ISC that it defer
action on its investigation at that time in response to a
request from DOJ.
In March 2017, DOJ closed its investigation of
Representative Pittenger. As of the conclusion of the 115th
Congress the Committee had not completed its investigation into
this matter. Representative Pittenger lost his bid for
reelection to the House and the Committee will no longer have
jurisdiction over him after January 3, 2019.
In the Matter Regarding the Arrests of Members of the House During a
Protest Outside the United States Capitol on December 6,
2017\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter Regarding the Arrests of Members
of the House During a Protest Outside the United States Capitol on
December 6, 2017, H. Rept. 115-482, 115th Cong. 1st Sess. (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the requirements of Committee Rule
18(e)(2), the Committee convened on December 21, 2017, to
consider the arrest of Representatives Judy Chu and Luis V.
Gutierrez for crowding, obstructing, or incommoding during a
protest outside the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.,
on December 6, 2017. Representatives Chu and Gutierrez each
forfeited a $50 collateral payment, whereupon the local court
disposed of the charge. The legal proceedings related to these
arrests were thus resolved.
After reviewing and considering this matter, the Committee
voted against impaneling an ISC related to the conduct of the
Representatives. In reaching this decision, the Committee
considered the scope and nature of the violations, and
determined them to be ones for which review by an ISC was not
warranted.
On December 21, 2017, the Committee submitted a Report to
the House describing the facts and its findings regarding this
matter.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Jim Renacci
On August 9, 2018, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings regarding Representative Jim Renacci.
At the conclusion of the 115th Congress, the Committee had
not completed its investigation into this matter.
Representative Renacci did not run for reelection to the House
for the 116th Congress, and the Committee will not have
jurisdiction over him after January 3, 2019.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Bobby L.
Rush\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Bobby L. Rush, H. Rept. 115-618, 115th Cong. 2d Sess.
(2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 10, 2014, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative Bobby L. Rush may have violated
House rules and standards of conduct when he received unpaid
usage of office space. The OCE Report and Findings recommended
dismissal of separate allegations that Representative Rush
improperly converted campaign funds to personal use. The
Committee released the OCE Report and Findings, along with
Representative Rush's response, on November 10, 2014, and noted
in a public statement that the Committee was continuing to
review the allegations pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a).
Following its investigation, the Committee concluded that
Representative Rush accepted a gift of rent-free office space,
in violation of House rules and federal law. The Committee
determined Representative Rush exceeded the gift limit by
$14,610. The Committee concluded that Representative Rush did
not violate laws or House Rules that prohibit the conversion of
campaign funds to personal use.
On March 22, 2018, the Committee submitted a Report to the
House describing the facts and its findings in the matter and
reproving Representative Rush. In its Report, the Committee
found that Representative Rush must repay the value of the
impermissible gift within six weeks of the publication of the
Report. On May 18, 2018, Representative Rush provided a check
in the amount of $14,610 to the U.S. Treasury.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative David
Schweikert
On April 16, 2018, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative David Schweikert and his then-
Chief of Staff, Richard Oliver Schwab, may have authorized the
misuse of or misused Representative Schweikert's MRA,
Representative Schweikert may have failed to ensure that his
campaign committees complied with applicable rules regarding
contributions from congressional employees, Mr. Schwab may have
improperly made personal outlays on behalf of Representative
Schweikert's principal campaign committees, and Mr. Schwab may
have received income beyond the outside earned income limit for
senior staff.
On June 14, 2018, the Committee unanimously voted to
establish an ISC to determine whether Representative Schweikert
or Mr. Schwab violated the Code of Official Conduct or any law,
rule, regulation or other applicable standard of conduct in the
performance of their duties or the discharge of their
responsibilities, with respect to allegations forming the basis
for the OCE's referral.
On July 9, 2018, Mr. Schwab left House employment after
resigning from his position as Representative Schweikert's
Chief of Staff. On the date of Mr. Schwab's resignation, the
ISC's and the Committee's jurisdiction over Mr. Schwab ended.
On December 20, 2018, the Committee unanimously voted to
expand the ISC's jurisdiction to include allegations that (1)
Representative Schweikert may have used official resources to
benefit his campaign or pressured congressional staff to
perform political activity; (2) Representative Schweikert may
have authorized compensation to an employee who did not perform
duties commensurate with his House employment; (3)
Representative Schweikert or his campaign committee may have
received loans or gifts from a congressional employee; and (4)
Representative Schweikert may have omitted required information
from his annual House financial disclosure statements and
Federal Election Commission candidate committee reports.
As of the conclusion of the 115th Congress, the ISC had not
completed its investigation into this matter. Representative
Schweikert was reelected to the House for the 116th Congress.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Roger
Williams\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Roger Williams, H. Rept. 115-271, 115th Cong. 1st Sess.
(2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 13, 2016, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative Roger Williams may have
violated federal law, House rules, and other standards of
conduct when he took an official action on a matter affecting
his personal financial interest in an automobile dealership, by
offering an amendment to certain surface transportation
reauthorization legislation in the 114th Congress (the Williams
Amendment). The Committee released the OCE Report and Findings,
along with Representative Williams' response, on August 11,
2016, and noted in a public statement that the Committee was
continuing to review the allegations pursuant to Committee Rule
18(a).
On August 1, 2017, the Committee submitted a Report to the
House describing the facts and its findings in this matter, as
well as its determination to take no further action in this
matter.
In its Report, the Committee concluded that, while the
Williams Amendment could have affected Representative Williams'
personal financial interests, his actions in offering the
amendment did not create a reasonable inference of
inappropriate conduct. However, the Committee found that
Representative Williams should have consulted the Committee for
guidance, to identify in advance any potential limitations on
his ability to offer and support the Williams Amendment, in
order to avoid any inference of improper action.
Representative Williams' failure to consult the Committee
aside, the Committee ultimately concluded that, based on the
totality of the circumstances, Representative Williams'
sponsorship of the Williams Amendment did not violate any law
or House Rule. Accordingly, the Committee unanimously voted to
dismiss the matter and to take no further action.
[all]