[House Report 116-703]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 586
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 116-703
_______________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 31, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
42-824 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
Chairman Ranking Member
GRACE MENG, New York GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
ANTHONY BROWN, Maryland
REPORT STAFF
Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
Donna Herbert, Director of Administration
Brittney Pescatore, Director of Investigations
Tonya Sloans, Director of Financial Disclosure
Tonia Smith, Director of Advice and Education
David Arrojo, Counsel to the Chairman
Christopher Donesa, Counsel to the Ranking Member
Danielle Appleman, Investigator
George Korn, Financial Disclosure Clerk
Melissa Epstein, Staff Assistant
Caroline Taylor, Investigative Clerk
Kathryn Lefeber Donahue, Senior Counsel
Tamar Nedzar, Senior Counsel
Janet Foster, Counsel
C. Ezekiel Ross, Counsel
Michelle Seo, Counsel
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ethics,
Washington, DC, December 31, 2020.
Hon. Cheryl L. Johnson,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Johnson: 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
116th Congress.''
Sincerely,
Theodore E. Deutch,
Chairman.
Kenny Marchant,
Ranking Member.
C O N T E N T S
I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................3
II. ADVICE AND EDUCATION.............................................3
III. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE............................................11
IV. COMMITTEE RULES.................................................13
V. COVID-19 RESPONSE...............................................13
VI. INVESTIGATIONS..................................................14
APPENDIX I: RELEVANT HOUSE RULES................................. 29
APPENDIX II: ADVISORY MEMORANDA.................................. 41
APPENDIX III: COMMITTEE RULES.................................... 195
APPENDIX IV: PUBLIC STATEMENTS................................... 247
Union Calendar No. 586
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 116-703
======================================================================
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
_______
December 31, 2020--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Deutch and Mr. Marchant, 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 116th Congress, the Committee was led by Chairman
Theodore E. Deutch and Ranking Member Kenny Marchant. The
Members appointed at the beginning of the Congress were Grace
Meng, John Ractliffe, Susan Wild, George Holding, Dean
Phillips, Jackie Walorski, Anthony Brown, and Michael Guest. In
May 2020, John Ratcliffe left the Committee and was not
replaced.
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.
The Committee met 19 times in the 116th Congress, including
10 times in 2019 and 9 times in 2020.
Within the scope of its training, advice and education,
travel, and financial disclosure responsibilities, the
Committee:
Issued more than 730 formal advisory
opinions regarding ethics rules;
Reviewed and approved more than 3,000
requests to accept privately-sponsored, officially-
connected travel;
Fielded nearly 37,000 informal telephone
calls, emails, and in-person requests for guidance on
ethics issues;
Released 28 advisory memoranda on various
ethics topics to the House;
Provided training to over 7,000 House
Members, officers, and employees each year, and
reviewed their certifications for satisfying the
House's mandatory training requirements;
Received nearly 6,000 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 Rule 18(a), the
impanelment of investigative subcommittees (ISC), 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 116th Congress, within the scope of its
investigative responsibilities, the Committee:
Commenced or continued investigative fact-
gathering regarding 50 separate investigative matters;
Impanelled six ISCs, in the matters of
Representative Chris Collins, Representative Matt
Gaetz, Representative Duncan Hunter, Delegate Michael
San Nicolas, Representative David Schweikert and
Representative Steve Watkins;
Held 32 ISC meetings;
Filed 5 reports with the House totaling over
3,300 pages regarding various investigative matters;
Publicly addressed 16 matters, described in
Section VI of this report;
Resolved 25 additional matters;
Conducted 110 voluntary witness interviews;
Authorized the issuance of 11 subpoenas;
Conducted 4 interviews pursuant to
subpoenas; and
Reviewed over 420,000 pages of documents.
All votes taken in the ISCs were unanimous. There were a
total of 17 investigative matters pending before the Committee
as of December 31, 2020.
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, Ranking Member Kenny Marchant and
Representative George Holding, 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 116th
Congress.
The jurisdiction of the Committee on Ethics is defined in
clauses 3(g), 4(d)(1) and 6(c)(5) 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 Chairman and Ranking Member. Under the statute, the
primary responsibilities of the Office include the following:
Providing information and guidance to House
Members, officers, and employees on the laws, rules,
and other standards of conduct applicable to them in
their official capacities;
Drafting responses to specific advisory
opinion requests received from House Members, officers,
and employees, and submitting them to the Chairman and
Ranking Member for review and approval;
Drafting advisory memoranda on the ethics
rules for general distribution to House Members,
officers, and employees, and submitting them to the
Chairman and Ranking Member, or the full Committee, for
review and approval; and
Developing and conducting educational
briefings for House Members, officers, and employees.
The duties of the Office of Advice and Education are also
addressed in Committee Rule 3, which sets out additional
requirements and procedures for the issuance of Committee
advisory opinions.
Under Committee Rule 3(j), the Committee will keep
confidential any request for advice from a Member, officer, or
employee, as well as any response to such a request. As a
further inducement to House Members, officers, and employees to
seek Committee advice whenever they have any uncertainty on the
applicable laws, rules, or standards, statutory law (2 U.S.C.
Sec. 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 116th 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 116th
Congress, Committee attorneys responded to more than 36,000
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. 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 last update of the Manual was issued
in March 2008. In the 116th Congress, the Committee began the
process of updating the Manual by issuing new travel and gifts
sections. As part of this effort, the Committee also issued the
first revised Travel Regulations since 2012 and the first
revised Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (FGDA) Regulations,
in over forty years.
All current Committee publications, including the House
Ethics Manual, are available from the Committee's office and
their text is posted in a searchable format on the Committee's
Web site: https://ethics.house.gov. In the 116th Congress, in
connection with the update of the Manual, the Committee
redesigned its Web site for the first time since 2012. The new
Web site and in particular the interface with the House Ethics
Manual, is easier to access, more intuitive, and mobile-
friendly.
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 116th Congress were as follows:
Reminder of Ethics Requirements for
Financial Disclosure Filers (February 8. 2019)
The 2019 Outside Earned Income Limit and
Salaries Triggering the Financial Disclosure
Requirement and Post-Employment Restrictions Applicable
to House Officers and Employers (February 8, 2019);
The 2019 Outside Earned Income Limit and
Salaries Triggering the Financial Disclosure
Requirement and Post-Employment Restrictions Applicable
to House Officers and Employees (February 8, 2019);
Upcoming Financial Disclosure Clinics &
Training (April 10, 2019);
Non-Commercial Aircraft Travel (April 10,
2019);
Member, Officer, and Employee Participation
in Fundraising Activities (May 2, 2019);
The 2019 Outside Earned Income Limit and
Salaries Triggering the Financial Disclosure
Requirement and Post-Employment Restrictions Applicable
to House Officers and Employees (June 13, 2019);
Important Information Relating to Hurricane
Dorian: Joint House Administration-Ethics Guidance
(August 30, 2019);
Access to Classified Information and
Controlled Areas (November 14, 2019);
Reminder about Annual Ethics Training
Requirements for 2019 (November 26, 2019);
Outside Positions Regulations (December 11,
2019);
Holiday Guidance on the Gift Rule (December
12, 2019));
The 2020 Outside Earned Income Limit and
Salaries Triggering the Financial Disclosure
Requirement and Post-Employment Restrictions Applicable
to House Officers and Employees (January 10, 2020);
Intentional Use of Audio-Visual Distortions
& Deep Fakes (January 28, 2020);
Campaign-related Media Appearances on
Congressional Grounds (March 10, 2020);
Update about the Coronavirus: Joint House
Administration-Ethics Committee Guidance (March 16,
2020);
Update About the Coronavirus and
Solicitation: Joint House Administration-Ethics
Guidance (April 3, 2020);
Upcoming Financial Disclosure Filing
Deadline & Pandemic-Related Relief (April 7, 2020);
Ethics Guidance--Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security (CARES) Act (April 13, 2020);
Webinar Ethics Training for New Employees
and Paid Interns (April 29, 2020);
Reminder of STOCK Act Requirements,
Prohibition Against Insider Trading & New Certification
Requirement (June 11, 2020);
Reminder of Financial Disclosure Filing
Deadline & Assistance Available (July 13, 2020)
Campaign Activity Webinar Training (July 21,
2020);
Guidance on House Staff Assisting in the
Presidential Transition (November 24, 2020)
Reminder About Annual Ethics Training
Requirements for 2020 (December 1, 2020)
Prohibition Concerning Campaign
Contributions and Outlays (December 11, 2020)
Negotiations for Future Employment and
Restrictions on Post-Employment for House Members and
Officers (December 18, 2020)
Negotiations for Future Employment and
Restrictions on Post-Employment for House Staff
(December 18, 2020)
A copy of each of these advisory memoranda is included as
Appendix II to this Report.
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 publishes the following summary chart in the interest
of transparency.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ETHICS TRAINING
Clause 3(a)(6) of House Rule XI, which originated in the
110th Congress, requires all House Members and employees 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 2020, the senior staff rate was $131,239 per year, or a
monthly salary above $10,936. 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 103 ethics training sessions during 2019 and 32 during
2020. During the 116th 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 2019, the Committee trained more than 2,300 employees in
person at live ethics briefings, and more than 5,100 used one
of the on-line training options. During 2020, the Committee
trained nearly 800 employees in person at live ethics
briefings, and more than 6,343 through one of the on-line
training options. The total number of employees who completed
ethics training for 2020 will be determined after January 31,
2021, the date that House Rule XI established as the deadline
for employees to certify completion of the ethics training
requirement for 2020.
In addition to the training required under House Rule XI,
the Committee also provided training in several other contexts.
The House will include 57 new Members in the 117th Congress,
most of whom have not previously served in the House. The
Committee made a presentation to the Members-elect of the 117th
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.
Committee staff also participated in approximately 5
briefings sponsored by or held for the members of outside
organizations. In addition, Committee staff led approximately 8
briefings for visiting international dignitaries from a variety
of countries, including Argentina, India, and Sri Lanka.
ADVISORY OPINION LETTERS
The Committee's Office of Advice and Education, under the
direction and supervision of the Committee's Chairman and
Ranking Member, prepared and issued nearly 735 private advisory
opinions during the 116th Congress: 510 in 2019 and 225 in 2020
Opinions issued by the Committee in the 116th 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 or a determination regarding
the safety or security a proposed trip. 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 116th 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 9, 2020, the Committee voted unanimously to
adopt revised Travel Regulations\5\ and FGDA Regulations.\6\
These new Travel Regulations will be effective for all trips
starting on or after April 1, 2021, and the new FGDA
Regulations are effective immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\House Rule 25, clause 5(i).
\6\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\7\ 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.\8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Travel Regulations at Part 500--Committee Approval Process.
\8\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 1,900
such requests in 2019. In 2020, the Committee reviewed nearly
550 requests to accept privately-sponsored, officially-
connected travel, and issued letters approving nearly 260 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.\9\ 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\House Rule XXV, clause5(b)(1)(A)(ii); Travel Regulations at Part
600--Post-Travel Disclosure.
\10\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 Web site, 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 Web site.
OUTSIDE POSITIONS WORKING GROUP
The Committee adopted regulations governing outside
positions held by Members and staff during the 116th Congress.
House Resolution 6 (H. Res. 6), created a new clause in the
Code of Official Conduct, effective January 1, 2020,
prohibiting Members and staff from serving as an officer or
director of any public company traded on a U.S. exchange. H.
Res. 6 also required that, ``[n]ot later than December 31,
2019, the Committee on Ethics shall develop regulations
addressing other types of prohibited service or positions that
could lead to conflicts of interest.''
To effectuate its mandate, the Committee established a
working group, consisting of Representative Susan Wild and
Representative Van Taylor, to explore potential positions that
may lead to conflicts of interest. The working group reviewed
an extensive amount of research, solicited public comment
concerning the Committee's mandate under H. Res. 6, and
convened a public session on July 25, 2019, where four outside
groups made presentations. The working group also solicited
input from Members of the House of Representatives. After
approximately six months of work, the working group provided
bipartisan proposals to the Committee. In December of 2019, the
Committee voted to adopt Outside Position Regulations (OPR)
that went into effect on January 1, 2020. A complete version of
the OPR is available at: https://ethics.house.gov/sites/
ethics.house.gov/files/FINAL%20Adopted%20OPR%20Regulations%20-
Pink%20Sheet%2012052019_.pdf
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.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\House Comm'n 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.
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, nearly all
Members and staff used the online electronic filing system to
submit their calendar year 2020 Statements. Specifically, 93%
of Members and House staff used the online system to draft and
submit their 2020 Statements.
The Committee engages in substantial training efforts to
assist filers with completing their Statements and PTRs. The
Committee held two briefings for Members, officers, and
employees. The Committee hosted three walk-in clinics to
support filers' use of the electronic filing system for
Statements and PTRs.
For the 116th 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 2019, the Legislative Resource Center of
the Clerk's office referred a total of 4,105 Financial
Disclosure Statements to the Committee for review. Of those,
3,376 were Statements filed by current or new House Members or
employees, and 729 were Statements filed by candidates for the
House. The Clerk's office also referred a total of 1,852 PTRs
to the Committee for review. The Committee received 689 PTRs
from Members and 1,163 PTRs from officers and employees.
For calendar year 2020, the Legislative Resource Center of
the Clerk's office referred a total of 4,308 Statements to the
Committee for review.\12\ Of those, 3,340 were Statements filed
by current or new House Members or employees, and 968 were
Statements filed by candidates for the House. The Clerk's
office also referred a total of 1,872 PTRs to the Committee for
review. The Committee received 669 PTRs from Members and 1,204
PTRs from officers and employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\In 2020, due to the unprecedented challenges created by the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee exercised its authority under EIGA to
automatically grant all House Members and employees who were required
to file an annual Financial Disclosure Statement the full 90-day
extension permitted by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Web
site, 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 Web site, 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 February 27, 2019, the
Committee met and adopted the Committee rules for the 116th
Congress. The substance of the Committee rules for the 116th
Congress was largely identical to the amended rules adopted in
the 115th Congress.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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. 21 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copy of the Committee Rules for the 116th Congress is
included as Appendix III to this Report.
V. COVID-19 RESPONSE
In recognition of the unprecedented challenges created by
the COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee took proactive measures to
assist the House community.
The Committee issued several general advisory opinions
applying the ethics rules to the unique issues raised by the
pandemic. The Committee also exercised its authority under EIGA
to automatically grant all House Members and employees who were
required to file an annual Financial Disclosure Statement the
full 90-day extension permitted by law. In addition, the
Committee joined with the Committee on House Administration to
announce a temporary exception to longstanding guidance
regarding solicitation activity permitting Members to use
official communications to solicit for blood donations and in-
kind resources on behalf of charitable organizations.
The Committee also reduced the number of live, in-person
ethics training sessions and increased its online training
opportunities, including rolling out new live webinar options.
The Committee temporarily waived the requirement that New
Employee training be conducted in a live session. The Committee
closed some of its physical offices and limited the number of
staffers who were in the office at any given time. The
Committee also took the necessary steps to be able to conduct
remote Committee business meetings, including holding a dress
rehearsal for a remote Committee hearing and two remote
Committee hearings. The Committee Chairman then submitted a
letter for printing in the Congressional Record from a majority
of the Members of the Committee notifying the Speaker that the
requirements for conducting a remote business meeting had been
met and that the Committee was prepared to conduct a remote
meeting and permit remote participation.
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.\14\ When a Member, officer, or employee, who is the
subject of a Committee investigation, resigns, the Committee
loses jurisdiction over the individual. In the 116th Congress,
four individuals resigned from the House while the Committee
had an open investigation regarding them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\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 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 Chairman 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). 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.\16\ Members of the Committee can, and do,
attend and participate in voluntary interviews with witnesses
in both 18(a) and ISC investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\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 Chairman 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 Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 past 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.\17\ Maintaining a confidential
investigation also avoids unnecessarily tarnishing a Member's
reputation before a determination of wrongdoing has been made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\See, e.g., House 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\See, e.g., House Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations
Relating to Elizabeth Esty, H. Rept 115-1093, 115th Cong. 2d Sess.
(2018); House Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative David McKinley, H. Rept. 114-795, 114th Cong. 2d Sess.
(2016); House 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.\19\ However, most Committee investigations begin
when the Committee, on its own initiative, undertakes an
investigation. In the 116th Congress, the Committee commenced
or continued investigative fact-gathering regarding 50 separate
investigative matters, most of which were begun at the
Committee's initiative. Those matters also included referrals
from the OCE. In the 116th Congress, the OCE referred 13
matters to the Committee, 7 with a recommendation for further
review and 6 with a recommendation that all of the allegations
be dismissed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\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 116th Congress, the House issued a reprimand and a
fine at the recommendation of the Committee and an
investigative subcommittee in one matter. The Committee also
issued a reproval in one matter. Including those two matters,
since 2008, the Committee has recommended that the House issue
a censure in one matter, recommended in two matters that the
House issue a reprimand, and issued 15 reprovals. Nine of those
resolutions followed investigations initiated by the Committee
under its own authority, while nine 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).\20\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, Report of the
Democratic Members of the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, (H.
Rept. 110-1, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. (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.''\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Id. at 14. The 13 OCE referrals received by the Committee in
the 116th Congress were transmitted an average of 135 days after the
start of the preliminary review phase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.''\22\ 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 116th Congress one investigation that spanned multiple
Congresses required the Committee to review more than 200,000
pages of documents to resolve the matter.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Committee Rule 17A(a).
\23\House Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative David Schweikert, H. Rept. 116-46, 116th Cong. 2d Sess.
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\24\
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 116th
Congress, the Committee did opt to defer several investigations
at the request of DOJ, as described further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\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 16 investigative matters
during the 116th Congress. In addition to confidential matters,
the Committee also carried over several public matters from the
115th Congress. In the 116th Congress, the Committee continued
to address the matters concerning Representatives Chris
Collins, Duncan Hunter, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, David
Schweikert, and Michael Collins. A chronological overview of
public statements made by the Committee in the 116th Congress
regarding investigative matters follows.
On April 17, 2019, the Committee announced it was
continuing to review allegations regarding Representative David
Schweikert that were referred by the OCE on April 16, 2018 and
were within the jurisdiction of an ISC, and, pursuant to
Committee Rule 17A(f)(2), because the matter had not been
resolved within one year of the referral from OCE, the
Committee was required to make public OCE's Report in the
matter.
On May 3, 2019, the Committee announced it had unanimously
voted to re-authorize an ISC for the 116th Congress to review
allegations involving Representative Chris Collins. The
Committee, following precedent, unanimously recommended to the
ISC that it defer action on those allegations in response to a
request from DOJ.
On May 3, 2019, the Committee announced it had unanimously
voted to re-authorize an ISC for the 116th Congress to review
allegations involving Representative Duncan Hunter. The
Committee, following precedent, unanimously recommended to the
ISC that it defer action on those allegations in response to a
request from DOJ.
On May 3, 2019, the Committee announced it had unanimously
voted to re-authorize an ISC for the 116th Congress to review
allegations involving Representative David Schweikert.
On June 28, 2019, the Committee announced that an ISC had
been established and forwarded a Member complaint regarding
allegations that Representative Matt Gaetz sought to threaten,
intimidate, harass, or otherwise improperly influence the
President's former attorney, Michael Cohen, in connection with
Mr. Cohen's testimony before a congressional committee.
On September 5, 2019, the Committee announced it was
continuing to review allegations regarding Representative David
Schweikert that were referred by the OCE on September 5, 2018
and were within the jurisdiction of an ISC, and, pursuant to
Committee Rule 17A(f)(2), because the matter had not been
resolved within one year of the referral from OCE, the
Committee was required to make public OCE's Report in the
matter.
On October 1, 2019, the Committee released a statement
noting that Representative Chris Collins had resigned from
Congress and, as a consequence, the ISC and the Committee no
longer had jurisdiction over him.
On October 23, 2019, the Committee announced that, pursuant
to Committee Rule 18(a), it would review allegations that
Representative Katie Hill may have engaged in a sexual
relationship with an individual on her congressional staff.
On October 24, 2019, the Committee announced that, pursuant
to Committee Rule 18(a), it would review allegations that
Delegate Michael F.Q. San Nicolas may have engaged in a sexual
relationship with an individual on his congressional staff,
converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted
improper or excessive campaign contributions.
On November 14, 2019, the Committee announced that,
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), it would review allegations
that Representative Alcee Hastings may have engaged in a
relationship with an individual in his congressional office and
whether Representative Hastings had received any improper
gifts, including any forbearance, from that employee.
On November 14, 2019, the Committee announced that,
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review
allegations referred by the OCE regarding Representative Bill
Huizenga.
On November 14, 2019, the Committee announced that,
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review
allegations referred by the OCE regarding Representative Ross
Spano and that, following precedent, the Committee unanimously
voted to defer action on those allegations in response to a
request from DOJ.
On November 14, 2019, the Committee announced that,
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review
allegations referred by the OCE regarding Representative
Rashida Tlaib.
On December 5, 2019, the Committee announced that the
Chairman and Ranking Member had issued a letter to
Representative Duncan Hunter.
On December 9, 2019, the Committee announced that the DOJ
had withdrawn its request that the Committee defer
consideration in the matter of Representative Duncan Hunter and
made public the OCE's findings in the matter.
On December 17, 2019, the Committee announced that,
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review
allegations referred by the OCE regarding Representative Lori
Trahan.
On December 19, 2019, the Committee transmitted a Report to
the House regarding allegations relating to Representative
Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
On January 14, 2020, Committee released a statement noting
that Representative Duncan Hunter had resigned from Congress
and, as a consequence, the ISC and the Committee no longer had
jurisdiction over him.
On March 11, 2020, the Committee unanimously voted to
establish an ISC with regard to allegations that Delegate
Michael F.Q. San Nicolas may have: engaged in a sexual
relationship with an individual on his congressional staff;
converted campaign funds to personal use; accepted improper
and/or excessive campaign contributions; reported campaign
disbursements that may not be legitimate and verifiable
campaign expenditures attributed to bona fide campaign or
political purposes; omitted required information from or
disclosed false information in reports filed with the Federal
Election Commission; made false statements to government
investigators or agencies; and/or improperly interfered or
attempted to interfere in a government investigation of related
allegations in violation of House Rules, law, regulations, or
other standards of conduct.
On June 12, 2020, the Committee announced that, following
its review, it determined to take no further action in the
matter of Representative Alcee Hastings.
On July 16, 2020, the Committee transmitted a Report to the
House regarding allegations relating to Representative Lori
Trahan.
On July 30, 2020, the Committee transmitted a Report to the
House regarding allegations relating to Representative David
Schweikert and announced it would bring a privileged resolution
for consideration and vote by the full House.
On July 31, 2020, the Committee announced that, pursuant to
Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review allegations
referred by the OCE regarding Representative Sanford Bishop.
On August 7, 2020, the Committee transmitted a Report to
the House regarding allegations relating to Representative
Rashida Tlaib.
On August 13, 2020, the Committee announced it had
unanimously voted to establish an ISC with regard to
allegations that Representative Steve Watkins falsely reported
information to a law enforcement officer; voted in an election
district without being lawfully registered to vote; knowingly
marked or transmitted more than one advance voting ballot; and/
or failed to notify the proper agency of a change of name or
address.
On August 21, 2020, the Committee transmitted a Report to
the House regarding allegations relating to Representative Matt
Gaetz.
On November 16, 2020, the Committee announced that it
continued to defer consideration of the matter regarding
Representative Ross Spano in response to a request from DOJ.
On December 17, 2020, the Committee announced that,
pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), it would continue to review
allegations referred by the OCE regarding Representative Steven
Palazzo.
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 Web site. All of the Committee's Reports as filed
with the House are also available on the Committee's Web site.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Sanford Bishop,
Jr.
On February 10, 2020, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative Sanford Bishop, Jr.'s campaign
committee reported disbursements that were not attributable to
bona fide campaign or political purposes, and that
Representative Bishop authorized expenditures from his Members'
Representational Allowance (MRA) that were not for permissible
official expenses, in violation of federal law, House rules and
other standards of conduct.
On July 31, 2020, the Committee released the OCE Report and
Findings, along with Representative Bishop'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 116th Congress, the Committee
had not completed its investigation into this matter.
Representative Bishop was reelected to the House for the 117th
Congress.
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' 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.
On May 3, 2019, the Committee announced it had unanimously
voted to reestablish the ISC in the 116th Congress. The DOJ had
requested that the Committee continue to defer consideration of
the matters in DOJ's jurisdiction. The Committee, again
following precedent, unanimously recommended to the ISC that it
defer action as to those matters. On September 30, 2019,
Representative Collins announced his resignation from the
House, effective October 1, 2019, at which time the ISC and the
Committee lost jurisdiction to continue its investigation.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Michael Collins
On May 11, 2017, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings regarding Michael Collins, former Chief of
Staff to Representative John Lewis and former paid campaign
consultant for the John Lewis for Congress campaign committee,
in which it recommended further review of allegations that
between 2015 and 2017, Mr. Collins may have violated House
rules and other standards of conduct by receiving compensation
for work involving fiduciary duties and/or serving for
compensation as an officer of the campaign committee. OCE also
recommended review of allegations that in 2015, Mr. Collins
received income from the campaign committee that exceeded the
outside earned income limit applicable to senior staff for that
calendar year. 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).
On September 1, 2020, Mr. Collins resigned from the office
of the 5th Congressional District of Georgia, at which point
the Committee lost jurisdiction to continue its investigation.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Matt Gaetz
On March 13, 2019, the Committee received a Member
complaint alleging that a social media post made by
Representative Matt Gaetz regarding an individual, the day
before that individual was scheduled to testify before a
congressional committee, was an attempt to threaten,
intimidate, harass, or otherwise improperly influence Mr.
Cohen's testimony in violation of the federal laws prohibiting
witness tampering and obstruction of Congress. Because
Representative Gaetz initially declined to testify before the
Committee, the Committee was unable to dispose of the complaint
in a timely fashion and therefore was required to establish an
ISC. On June 25, 2019, an ISC was formed, pursuant to House
Rule XI, clause 3(b)(2), and Committee Rule 16(d).
The ISC reviewed Representative Gaetz's social media post,
and his related conduct, and did not find that he had the
requisite intent to violate the federal criminal statutes
prohibiting witness tampering and/or obstruction of Congress.
The ISC did find, however, that Representative Gaetz's conduct
violated House Rule XXIII, clause 1, which requires Members to
act at all times in a manner that reflects creditably in the
House. On February 3, 2020, the ISC transmitted its findings to
the full Committee and recommended that the full Committee
admonish Representative Gaetz for his conduct.
On July 29, 2020, the Committee unanimously voted to adopt
the ISC's Report and to admonish Representative Gaetz for his
conduct. As a general matter, the Committee avoids making
public statements regarding investigative matters within 60
days of an election in which the subject of the investigation
is a candidate. Representative Gaetz was on the Florida primary
election ballot on August 18, 2020. Therefore, the Committee
postponed until August 21, 2020, release of a Report describing
the facts and its findings in the matter to the House, as well
as its determination to take no further action in the matter.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Alcee Hastings
On November 14, 2019, the Committee announced that it was
investigating, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), allegations
that Representative Alcee Hastings may have violated House
Rules, laws or other standards of conduct by being in a
personal relationship with an individual employed in his
congressional office and by receiving improper gifts, including
any forbearance, from that employee.
During its investigation, the Committee became aware that
Representative Hastings had been married to the individual
employed in his congressional office since January 2019. Based
on this information, the Committee found that Representative
Hastings was not in violation of the applicable House Rules.
The Committee also considered whether Representative Hastings
had complied with the laws and rules relating to nepotism.
Following its review, the Committee determined to take no
further action based on the particular facts of the matter,
including that Representative Hastings' spouse's employment,
which began prior to the 113th Congress, was not prohibited
under the relevant House Rules. On June 12, 2020, the Committee
announced that it had closed its investigation.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Katie Hill
On October 23, 2019, the Committee announced that it was
investigating, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), allegations
that the Representative Katie Hill may have engaged in a sexual
relationship with an individual on her congressional staff.
On October 27, 2019, Representative Hill announced her
resignation from the House, effective November 3, 2019, at
which time the Committee lost jurisdiction to continue its
investigation.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Bill Huizenga
On August 16, 2019, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations that Representative Bill Huizenga's campaign
committee reported campaign disbursements that may not be
legitimate and verifiable campaign expenditures attributable to
bona fide campaign or political purposes and accepted
contributions from individuals employed in his congressional
office, in violation of federal law, House rules and other
standards of conduct. The OCE also reviewed an allegation that
Representative Huizenga authorized expenditures from his
Members' Representational Allowance (MRA) that were not for
permissible official expenses, but the OCE recommended the
Committee dismiss that allegation. The Committee released the
OCE Report and Findings on November 14, 2019 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 116th Congress, the Committee had
not completed its investigation into this matter.
Representative Huizenga was reelected to the House for the
117th Congress.
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 OCE's 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.
On May 3, 2019, the Committee announced it had unanimously
voted to reestablish the ISC in the 116th Congress. The
Committee, again following precedent, unanimously recommended
to the ISC that it defer action as to those matters.
Representative Hunter pled guilty to one count of
conspiring to convert campaign funds to personal use on
December 3, 2019. On December 5, 2019, the Committee released a
letter it had issued Representative Hunter in which the
Committee advised him that, pursuant to House Rule XXIII,
clause10(a), he should refrain from voting in the House due to
his guilty plea. DOJ also withdrew its request for deferral
following Representative Hunter's guilty plea and on December
9, 2019, the Committee released OCE's Findings.
On January 7, 2020, Representative Hunter announced his
resignation from the House, effective January 13, 2020, at
which time, the ISC and the Committee lost jurisdiction to
continue its investigation.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Steven Palazzo
On September 2, 2020, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations involving Representative Steven Palazzo. Committee
Rule 17A(j) provides that the Committee may postpone any
reporting requirement related to an OCE referral that falls
within 60 days of an election in which the subject of the
referral is a candidate. Representative Palazzo was on the
general election ballot on November 3, 2020. Therefore, the
announcement that the Chairman and Ranking Member jointly
decided to extend the matter of Representative Palazzo for a
45-day period, pursuant to Committee Rules 17A(b)(1)(A) and
17A(c)(1), was postponed until December 17, 2020.
As of the conclusion of the 116th Congress, the Committee
had not completed its review of the OCE's referral.
Representative Palazzo was reelected to the House for the 117th
Congress.
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 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 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).
The Committee conducted a thorough and expansive
investigation of alleged misconduct from 2008 through 2017.
On December 19, 2019, the Committee voted unanimously to
submit a Report to the House which served as a reproval of
Representative Rodgers for her conduct. In its Report, the
Committee found that Representative Rogers provided
inappropriate compensation for consultant services from 2012 to
2017. Representative Rodgers defrayed the cost of official
services she received from consultants with either political
funds or the consultant's voluntary provision of services, in
violation House Rule XXIV. She also used official funds
appropriated for her House leadership office for consultant
services in a manner that would have been contrary to relevant
laws and rules restricting MRA expenditures. The Committee
found that the restrictions in place to safeguard congressional
funds from misuse are lacking with respect to leadership
offices. To address those concerns, the Committee voted to
refer certain allegations to the House Inspector General for
further review.
In addition, the Committee found that the congressional
offices of Representative Rodgers were governed by inconsistent
policies and poor record keeping, which led to the misuse of
official resources for campaign or other political purposes.
The Committee found that while Representative Rodgers' staff
was not compelled to assist with her campaign, her staff used
official resources, including official staff time,
congressional office space, and travel funds, for political
activities in violation of federal law and House Rules. The
Committee also found that Representative Rodgers improperly
combined official and campaign resources during her 2012
leadership race.
The Committee found that Representative Rodgers was
ultimately responsible for implementing adequate policies to
prevent her staff from acting contrary to House Rules and laws
and that she failed to do so, in violation of clauses 1 and 2
of House Rule XXIII. The Committee directed Representative
Rodgers to reimburse the U.S. Treasury $7,575.95 for the misuse
of official resources. In December 2019, Representative Rodgers
provided the U.S. Treasury with a check for the reimbursement
amount.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Delegate Michael F.Q. San
Nicolas
On October 24, 2019, the Committee announced that it was
investigating, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), allegations
that Delegate Michael F.Q. San Nicolas may have engaged in a
sexual relationship with an individual on his congressional
staff, converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or
accepted improper or excessive campaign contributions.
On June 12, 2020, the Committee announced that it had
unanimously voted on March 11, 2020, to establish an ISC with
jurisdiction to investigate whether Delegate San Nicolas may
have: engaged in a sexual relationship with an individual on
his congressional staff; converted campaign funds to personal
use; accepted improper and/or excessive campaign contributions;
reported campaign disbursements that may not be legitimate and
verifiable campaign expenditures attributable to bona fide
campaign or political purposes; omitted required information
from or disclosed false information in reports filed with the
Federal Election Commission; made false statements to
government investigators or agencies; and/or improperly
interfered or attempted to interfere in a government
investigation of related allegations. The Committee determined
to take that action following the receipt of a referral from
the OCE regarding this matter.
At the conclusion of the 116th Congress, the ISC had not
completed its investigation into this matter. Delegate San
Nicolas was reelected to the House for the 117th Congress.
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. The
ISC did not complete its investigation into this matter by the
conclusion of the 115th Congress.
On May 3, 2019, the Committee announced that it unanimously
voted to re-authorize an ISC for the 116th Congress to review
allegations involving Representative Schweikert.
At the completion of its investigation, the ISC unanimously
concluded that there was substantial reason to believe that
Representative Schweikert violated House Rules, the Code of
Ethics for Government Service, federal laws and other
applicable standards in connection with: campaign finance
violations and reporting errors by his authorized campaign
committees; the misuse of his MRA for unofficial purposes;
pressuring official staff to perform campaign work; and his
lack of candor and due diligence during the investigation.
On June 30, 2020, pursuant to a negotiated settlement with
Representative Schweikert, the ISC unanimously voted to adopt a
Statement of Alleged Violations (SAV) detailing 11 violations
and the facts giving rise to those violations. On that date,
the ISC submitted a Report to the full Committee unanimously
recommending that the Committee submit a Report to the House.
The ISC further recommended that the adoption of the Report by
the House serve as a reprimand of Representative Schweikert for
his misconduct. Additionally, the ISC recommended that the
Committee recommend that the House impose a fine on
Representative Schweikert in the amount of $50,000. As part of
the negotiated resolution, Representative Schweikert agreed to
waive all further procedural rights in the matter provided to
him by House or Committee rules, and agreed to admit to all 11
counts in the SAV, pay a $50,000 fine, and accept a House
reprimand.
On July 29, 2020, the Committee submitted to the House its
Report regarding this matter, in which the Committee adopted
the ISC's Report and all of its recommendations. Following
discussion by members of the Committee and ISC before the full
House, the House adopted the Committee's Report regarding
Representative Schweikert by unanimous consent on July 30,
2020, and thus reprimanded him for his misconduct. By adopting
the Committee's Report, the House of Representatives also
imposed a $50,000 fine on Representative Schweikert, as
recommended by the ISC and full Committee. Representative
Schweikert's counsel informed the Committee that he has paid
the fine.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Ross Spano
On August 16, 2019, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings in which it recommended further review of
allegations related to Representative Ross Spano. On November
14, 2019, the Committee announced that because DOJ had asked
the Committee to defer its consideration of the matter, the
Committee had followed precedent and voted unanimously to defer
its review. The Committee made OCE's Report, but not its
Findings, public at that time. On November 14, 2020, the
Committee announced that it was continuing to defer its
consideration of the matter at the request of DOJ.
Representative Spano lost his bid for reelection to the House
and the Committee will no longer have jurisdiction to continue
the investigation after January 3, 2021.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Rashida Tlaib
On August 16, 2019, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings regarding Representative Rashida Tlaib in
which it recommended further review of allegations that
Representative Tlaib's campaign committee, Rashida Tlaib for
Congress, may have violated House Rules and federal law by
reporting campaign disbursements that may not be legitimate and
verifiable campaign expenditures attributable to bona fide
campaign or political purposes. Specifically, OCE considered
whether the payments Representative Tlaib received after the
2018 general election, totaling $17,500, were prohibited under
campaign finance laws and regulations governing the personal
use of campaign funds. The Committee released the OCE Report
and Findings, along with Representative Tlaib's response, on
November 14, 2019, 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
there was sufficient evidence to support a determination that a
portion of the payments that Representative Tlaib received
after the 2018 general election was inconsistent with the
requirements outlined in the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (FECA) and its implementing regulations. The Committee
also noted, however, that Representative Tlaib had engaged in
good faith efforts to comply with the relevant FECA
requirements and had not sought to unjustly enrich herself by
receiving the excess campaign funds. Accordingly, the Committee
unanimously voted that a sanction was not merited in this
matter but directed Representative Tlaib to reimburse her
campaign committee $10,800, which represented the excess funds
that were inconsistent with FECA's requirements.
On August 7, 2020, 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 Lori Trahan
On September 18, 2019, the OCE forwarded to the Committee a
Report and Findings recommending further review of allegations
that Representative Lori Trahan's campaign committee accepted
excessive contributions from her husband, that were disguised
as personal loans, and that Representative Trahan omitted
required information related to the personal loans from her
congressional candidate Financial Disclosure Statements and
Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports.
The Committee investigated the allegations and found that
the funds used to source Representative Trahan's personal loans
to the Campaign were marital property to which Representative
Trahan had a legal right of access and control, and therefore,
were not excessive contributions from her husband. Furthermore,
while the Committee found there may have been omissions and
errors on Representative Trahan's Financial Disclosure
Statements and FEC reports, the Committee found no evidence
that the errors and omissions were knowing and willful. With
respect to some of the FEC related errors and omissions, the
Committee noted that there was no clear legal standard
articulated by the FEC in its public guidance, and the
Committee determined that the FEC was best qualified to
determine whether Representative Trahan's campaign properly
complied with those particular reporting requirements. The
Committee, accordingly, did not find that Representative Trahan
violated House Rules, laws, regulations or other standards of
conduct, and dismissed the matter.
On July 16, 2020, the Committee released a Report
describing the facts and its findings in the matter, as well as
its determination to dismiss the matter and take no further
action.
In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Steve Watkins
On July 14, 2020, the Shawnee County District Attorney in
Kansas filed a complaint against Representative Steve Watkins
charging him with: interference with law enforcement; providing
false information; voting without being qualified; unlawful
advance voting; and failing to notify the DMV of change of
address. On July 23, 2020, the Committee unanimously voted to
impanel an ISC with jurisdiction to investigate allegations
that Representative Watkins falsely reported information to a
law enforcement officer; voted in an election district without
being lawfully registered to vote; knowingly marked or
transmitted more than one advance voting ballot; and/or failed
to notify the proper agency of a change of name or address.
Representative Watkins lost his bid for reelection to the
House, and the ISC and the Committee will not have jurisdiction
to continue the investigation after January 3, 2021.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]