[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[Misconduct; Sanctions]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 573]]
MISCONDUCT; SANCTIONS
A. Introductory
Sec. 1. In General
Sec. 2. Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Sec. 3. -- Membership; Eligibility for Committee Service;
Disqualification
Sec. 4. -- Publications; Advisory Opinions
Sec. 5. Initiating an Investigation; Complaints
Sec. 6. Persons Subject to Disciplinary Procedures
B. Basis for Imposing Sanctions
Sec. 7. In General; The Code of Official Conduct
Sec. 8. Code of Ethics for Government Service
Sec. 9. Violations of Statutes
Sec. 10. Misuse of Hiring Allowance; False Claims
Sec. 11. Discrimination in Employment
Sec. 12. Campaign Fund Irregularities
Sec. 13. Solicitation of Contributions From Government Employees
Sec. 14. Limitations on Earned Income; Honoraria
Sec. 15. Acceptance of Gifts
Sec. 16. Financial Disclosure
Sec. 17. Professional Practice Restrictions
Sec. 18. Acts Committed in Prior Congress or Before Becoming a Member
C. Nature and Forms of Disciplinary Measures
Sec. 19. In General
Sec. 20. Expulsion
Sec. 21. -- Procedure; Resolutions of Expulsion
Sec. 22. Censure; Reprimand
Sec. 23. -- Grounds; Particular Conduct
Sec. 24. -- Censure Resolutions
Sec. 25. Fines; Restitution of Funds
Sec. 26. Deprivation of Status; Caucus Rules
Research References
2 Hinds Secs. 1236-1289
[[Page 574]]
6 Cannon Secs. 236-239
3 Deschler Ch 12 Secs. 12-18
U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 5 clause 2; Sec. 6 clause 1
Manual Secs. 62, 698, 726, 939
House Ethics Manual, 102-2, April 1992
A. Introductory
Sec. 1 . In General
Authority; Definitions and Distinctions
The authority of the House to discipline its Members flows from
the Constitution. It provides that each House may ``punish its Members
for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two thirds,
expel a Member.'' U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 5 clause 2.
The primary disciplinary measures that may be invoked by the House
against one of its Members include: (1) expulsion, (2) censure (3)
reprimand, (4) fine or other economic sanction, and (5) deprivation of
seniority or committee status. See Secs. 19 et seq., infra. These
remedies are not mutually exclusive. In a given case, a Member may be
censured and fined, and deprived of his seniority as well. Deschler Ch
12 Sec. 12.1. Imprisonment of a Member is a form of punishment that is
theoretically within the power of the House to impose, but such action
has never been taken by the House. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 12. The
disciplinary measures referred to herein are separate and distinct
from the sanctions of fine or imprisonment that may be available under
a criminal statute at the state or federal level. See Sec. 9, infra.
Exclusion Distinguished
The power of exclusion springs from Congress' right to determine
the qualifications of its Members, whereas the power of expulsion
stems from its authority to discipline Members for misconduct. This
distinction has not always been recognized. In 1870, a Member was
excluded from the 41st Congress on the ground that he had sold
appointments to the Military Academy. 1 Hinds Sec. 464. In 1967, after
an investigating committee recommended that a Member (Adam Clayton
Powell) be fined and censured for improperly maintaining his wife on
the clerk-hire payroll and for improper use of public funds for
private purposes (H. Rept. No. 90-27), the House voted to impose a
stronger penalty--to exclude him by denying him his seat. Deschler Ch
12 Secs. 14.1, 16.1. However, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that
exclusion is not a sanction to be invoked in cases involving the
misconduct of Members. It is available only for failure to meet the
constitutional qualifica-
[[Page 575]]
tions of Members as to age, citizenship, and inhabitancy. Powell v
McCormack, 395 US 486 (1969).
Sec. 2 . Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Generally
Prior to the 90th Congress, select temporary committees were
ordinarily created to consider allegations of improper conduct against
Members, and to recommend such disciplinary measures as might be
appropriate. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 2. In the 90th Congress, the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was made a standing
committee of the House (H. Res. 418, Apr. 13, 1967). It was given the
right to report as privileged resolutions recommending action by the
House with respect to the official conduct of any Member, officer, or
employee of the House. See Rule XI clause 4(a). Manual Sec. 726.
Legislative Jurisdiction
The Standards Committee has legislative jurisdiction over measures
relating to the Code of Official Conduct. Rule X clause 1(p). Manual
Sec. 685. Such measures are not privileged for immediate consideration
when reported by that committee, but may be considered in the House
pursuant to a special order from the Committee on Rules. 94-1, Apr.
16, 1975, p 10339 (H. Res. 396).
Investigative Jurisdiction; Recommendations and Reports
Pursuant to Rule X, the Standards Committee is authorized to
conduct investigations, hold hearings, and is to report any findings
and recommendations to the House. Clause 4(e). Manual Sec. 698. This
committee has the additional function of conducting investigations and
making the reports and recommendations required by House resolutions
authorizing specific investigations. On occasions where the House has
directed the committee to conduct specific investigations by separate
resolution, it has authorized the committee to take depositions, to
serve subpenas within or without the United States, to participate by
special counsel in relevant judicial proceedings (see H. Res. 252,
Feb. 9, 1977; H. Res. 608, Mar. 27, 1980), and to investigate, with
expanded subpena authority, persons other than Members, officers, and
employees (see H. Res. 1054, Mar. 3, 1976).
[[Page 576]]
By resolutions considered as questions of the privileges of the
House, the committee has been directed:
To investigate illegal solicitation of political contributions
in the House Office Building by unnamed sitting Members (99-1,
July 10, 1985, p 18397);
To review GAO audits of the operations of the ``bank'' in the
Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (102-1, Oct. 3, 1991, p ____);
To disclose the names and pertinent account information of
Members found to have abused the privileges of the ``House
bank'' (102-2, Mar. 12, 1992, p ____); and
To investigate violations of confidentiality by staff engaged
in the investigation of the operation and management of the
Office of the Postmaster (102-2, July 22, 1992, p ____).
Under Sec. 803 of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, and effective
Jan. 3, 1991, the Standards Committee is directed to adopt rules
governing its proceedings that separate the investigative and
adjudicative functions within the existing committee structure. An
investigative subcommittee is established whenever the committee votes
to undertake a preliminary inquiry. If the investigative panel issues
a Statement of Alleged Violation, a subcommittee on adjudication,
consisting of the remaining members of the full committee, is then
constituted to hear the evidence. The findings of the adjudicatory
panel are reported to the full committee which then decides what
recommendation or sanctions, if any, to submit to the House. The Act
also amends Rule X clause 4(e)(1) to provide that any letter of
reproval or other administrative action of the committee may only be
implemented as a part of its report to the House, and to require the
committee to report to the House on the final disposition of any case
it has voted to investigate.
Sec. 3 . -- Membership; Eligibility for Committee Service;
Disqualification
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, unlike other
standing committees of the House (where the majority party has a
preponderance of the elected membership), is constituted of equal
numbers of members from the majority and minority parties. Rule X
clause 6(a)(2). Service on the committee is also limited so no Member
can serve for more than three Congresses in any 10-year period. Manual
Sec. 701a.
The rules provide that a member of the Standards Committee shall
be ineligible to participate in a committee proceeding relating to his
or her own conduct. Rule X clause 4(e)(2)(D). Under this rule, where
it was contended that four members of the committee were ineligible to
adjudicate a complaint because of their personal involvement in the
conduct alleged in the
[[Page 577]]
complaint, the Speaker named four other Members to act as members of
the committee in all proceedings on the complaint in the same
political party ratio represented by the party affiliation of the four
ineligible members. 94-1, Sept. 11, 1975, p 28600.
The rules permit a member of the committee to disqualify himself
from participation in any committee investigation in which he
certifies that he could not render an impartial decision, and
authorize the Speaker to appoint a replacement for that investigation.
See Rule X clause 4(e)(2)(E). Under this rule, where a member of the
committee submits an affidavit of disqualification in a disciplinary
investigation of another Member (96-2, Mar. 18, 1980, p 5752), or
where a member of the committee is himself the subject of an ethics
inquiry and has notified the Speaker of his ineligibility (96-2, Feb.
5, 1980, p 1908), the Speaker may appoint another Member to serve on
the committee during the investigation.
Sec. 4 . -- Publications; Advisory Opinions
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is authorized to
issue and publish advisory opinions with respect to the general
propriety of any current or proposed conduct. Rule X clause 4(e). The
advisory opinions issued by the committee include:
No. 1--On the role of a Member in communicating with federal
agencies
No. 2--On the subject of a Member's clerk-hire
No. 3--On foreign travel at the expense of foreign governments
(superseded, 1981)
No. 4--On the propriety of accepting nonpaid transportation
(superseded, 1981)
No. 5--General interpretation of House Rule XLIII clause 11 as
to unauthorized use of congressional letterhead
No. 6--Interpretation of House Rule XLIII clause 6 and House
Rule XLV, as to the use of campaign funds to promote a town
meeting
The Select Committee on Ethics, which was established during the
95th Congress, and was the precursor of the present standing
committee, was authorized to issue advisory opinions respecting the
application of Rules XLIII through XLVII. 95-1, May 18, 1977, p 15449.
The advisory opinions included:
No. 1--Effective date of House Rule XLVI clause 4, relating to
the use of private funds for mass mailings
No. 2--Applicability of House Rule XLIII clause 4, to
reimbursement or payment of expenses associated with
conference, meeting, or similar event
[[Page 578]]
No. 3--Applicability of House Rule XLIII clause 4, to
acceptance of free transportation on inaugural flights
No. 4--Solicitation of cash gifts of less than $100 for
personal use through mass mailings
No. 5--Use of campaign funds to pay for official expenses
incurred prior to Mar. 3, 1977
No. 6--Acceptance of in-kind services for official purposes
No. 7--Definition of a gift for purposes of House Rule XLIII
clause 4
No. 8--Applicability of House Rule XLIII clause 4 to
acceptance of necessary expenses paid by an organization in
connection with a fact-finding event
No. 9--Definition of an indirect gift for purposes of House
Rule XLIII clause 4
No. 10--Who has a direct interest in legislation before
Congress
No. 11--Acceptance of proceeds from an independently sponsored
fund-raising event for a Member's unrestricted personal use
No. 12--Application and interpretation of House Rule XLIV
(financial disclosure)
No. 13--Interpretation of House Rule XLVII (outside earned
income).
The Standards Committee also publishes the House Ethics Manual,
102-2, April 1992. Advisory opinions issued by the committee may be
found in this publication. Advisory opinions Nos. 1-4 are published in
Deschler Ch 12, Appendix. See also Historical Summary of Conduct Cases
in the House of Representatives (Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, April 1992).
In accordance with the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the committee
has established an Office of Advice and Education, whose primary
responsibility is to provide information and guidance to Members,
officers, and employees regarding all standards of conduct which apply
to them. Sec. 803.
Sec. 5 . Initiating an Investigation; Complaints
Generally
In addition to investigations directed by House resolution, called
up as a question of the privileges of the House, an investigation of
particular conduct also may be initiated by the Standards Committee,
if approved by a majority vote of the members of that committee. An
investigation may also be initiated pursuant to a complaint filed with
the committee by a Member, or, where at least three Members have
declined in writing to transmit a complaint, by an individual not a
Member. Rule X clause 4(e)(2). Manual Sec. 698. An investigation of
particular conduct may also be initiated pursuant to House adoption of
a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules (see, e.g., H. Res.
608, Mar. 27, 1980, Abscam investigation). In 1988, a Mem-
[[Page 579]]
ber introduced a resolution directing the Standards Committee to
investigate a possible unauthorized disclosure of classified
information by the Speaker in violation of House rules, which was
referred to the Committee on Rules. 100-2, Sept. 30, 1988, p 27329.
Complaint Formalities; Unfounded Charges
Complaints filed with the committee must comply with the
requirements of Rule X clause 4(e)(2)(B) and must be in writing and
under oath. Manual Sec. 698. Each complaint received by the committee
is examined to determine whether it complies with that rule.
Complaints that are not in compliance are returned. Those that comply
with the rule are considered by the committee for appropriate
disposition. See, for example, H. Rept. No. 99-1019.
A Member who has presented false charges against another Member
has himself become the subject of a select committee investigation and
report. In 1908, the House adopted a resolution approving a select
committee report finding a Member in contempt and in violation of his
obligations as a Member where he had presented false charges of
corruption against another Member. 6 Cannon Sec. 400.
Disclosure; Debate
The rules require a vote of the Standards Committee to authorize
the public disclosure of the content of a complaint or the fact of its
filing. Rule X clause 4(e)(2)(F). References in floor debate to the
content of a complaint or the fact of its filing are governed by the
rules of decorum in debate under Rule XIV clause 1. The mere fact that
a complaint has been filed does not open up its allegations to debate
on the floor. Members should refrain from references in debate to the
ethical conduct of other Members where such conduct is not under
consideration in the House by way of a report of the committee or a
question of the privilege of the House. 100-2, July 6, 1988, p 16630;
101-2, July 24, 1990, p ____; 102-2, Mar. 19, 1992, p ____; 104-1, May
25, 1995, p ____. Members should also refrain from references in
debate to the motivations of Members who file complaints before the
Standards Committee. Debate may not include critical characterizations
of members of the committee. 102-2, Apr. 1, 1992, p ____; 104-1, Mar.
3, 1995, p ____. In 1988, where several Members had improperly engaged
in personalities during debate by references to the Speaker and to a
Member who had filed a complaint regarding the Speaker's official
conduct, the Chair announced to the House that Members should not
engage in such debate. 100-2, June 15, 1988, p 14623.
[[Page 580]]
Sec. 6 . Persons Subject to Disciplinary Procedures
The investigative authority that is given under the rules to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct over alleged violations
extends to any ``Member, officer, or employee'' of the House. Rule X
clause 4(e)(1). Manual Sec. 698. Even the Speaker is subject to the
investigative authority of this committee. Report of the Special
Outside Counsel in the Matter of Speaker James C. Wright, Jr.,
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Feb. 21, 1989. A Delegate
is as subject to censure for misconduct as any Member. 2 Hinds
Sec. 1305. With respect to violations by House officers or employees,
the rules of the Standards Committee authorize it to recommend to the
House dismissal from employment, fine, or any other sanction
determined by the committee to be appropriate. Rule 20, Rules of
Procedure, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 1993.
On one occasion, the House, by adopting a resolution presented as
a question of privilege (dealing with the unauthorized disclosure of a
House report), authorized the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to investigate persons not associated with the House. The
House considered it necessary to enlarge the subpena authority of the
committee to carry out this investigation. H. Res. 1042, H. Res. 1054,
94th Cong. Private citizens have been censured or reprimanded by the
Speaker at the bar of the House for attempting to bribe a Member (2
Hinds Sec. 1606) or for assaulting a Member (2 Hinds Secs. 1616-1619,
1625; 6 Cannon Sec. 333).
B. Basis for Imposing Sanctions
Sec. 7 . In General; The Code of Official Conduct
Generally
Prior to the 90th Congress, there was no House rule setting forth
a formal code of conduct for Representatives. However, in 1968, the
rules of the House were amended to establish, as new Rule XLIII, a
Code of Official Conduct for Members and employees of the House. The
code contains provisions governing the receipt of compensation, gifts,
and honorariums, as well as the use of campaign funds; it proscribes
discrimination in employment and bars certain ``non-House'' uses of
House stationery. Rule XLIII, which was extensively amended by the
Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and most recently by rules adopted in the
104th Congress (H. Res. 6, 104-1, Jan. 4, 1995, p ____). Manual
Sec. 939.
[[Page 581]]
Conduct Reflecting Discredit on the House
Disciplinary measures may be invoked against a Member, officer, or
employee on the ground that he has violated clause 1 of the Code of
Official Conduct (Rule XLIII). It requires that they conduct
themselves ``at all times'' in a manner that reflects ``creditably''
on the House. Manual Sec. 939. In the 95th Congress, in connection
with the Korean influence investigation, the Standards Committee
recommended that disciplinary measures be taken against three Members
for conduct that violated clause 1 of the Code. Included among the
alleged statutory violations cited as a basis for invoking clause 1
were failure to report campaign contributions (H. Rept. No. 95-1742)
and perjury (H. Rept. No. 95-1743). These three Members were
officially reprimanded by the House in 1978. 95-2, Oct. 13, 1978, pp
36976, 37005, 37009.
Two years later, this general standard of clause 1 was again used
as a basis for invoking several disciplinary proceedings. A Member of
the 96th Congress was expelled by the House for his conviction by a
jury on bribery charges. 96-2, Oct. 2, 1980, pp 28953 et seq. This
action was based on the finding that he ``took money in return for
promising to use [his] influence'' and that he thereby ``acted
corruptly,'' in violation of law and clauses 1 through 3 of House Rule
XLIII. H. Rept. No. 96-1387, In re Myers. See also H. Rept. No. 96-
1537 (In re Jenrette). This was the first exercise of the power to
expel in over a century.
A Member of the House was censured in the 96th Congress by a
unanimous vote and was required to make restitution of monies in the
amount which he had personally benefited in his misuse of the
congressional clerk-hire allowance. 96-1, July 31, 1979, pp 21584 et
seq. This was the first censure of a Member in over 50 years. The
Standards Committee in recommending such discipline noted that the
Member had admitted to misusing the clerk-hire allowance to his own
unjust enrichment in violation of a House rule, and that such conduct
reflected discredit on the House in violation of clause 1 of House
Rule XLIII. In recommending censure, the Committee considered the
Member's admission of guilt, his apology to the House, and his
agreement to make restitution. H. Rept. No. 96-351, In re Diggs. See
also H. Rept. No. 96-856, In re Flood; this case terminated with the
Member's resignation.
In the 98th Congress, two Members were found to have engaged in
sexual relationships with pages employed by the House. Again citing
Rule XLIII clause 1, the committee recommended that both Members be
reprimanded. H. Rept. No. 98-295, In re Studds; H. Rept. No. 98-296,
In re
[[Page 582]]
Crane. The House voted to censure, rather than reprimand, both
Members. 98-1, July 20, 1983, pp 20030-37.
Adhering to the ``Spirit and Letter'' of the Rules
Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct provides that a Member,
officer, or employee of the House must ``adhere to the spirit and the
letter'' of the rules of the House and to the rules of its committees.
Rule XLIII. Manual Sec. 939. This rule has been interpreted to mean
that a Member or employee may not do indirectly what the Member or
employee would be barred from doing directly. See Advisory Opinion No.
4, Apr. 6, 1977, of the Select Committee on Ethics, 95th Cong. In
1988, the Standards Committee concluded that a Member's acceptance of
an illegal gratuity on three occasions constituted actions which
discredited the House as an institution in violation of House Rule
XLIII clause 1, and, having violated the ``spirit'' of clause 1, he
also violated House Rule XLIII clause 2. H. Rept. No. 100-506 (In re
Biaggi). While purposeful violation of any rule of the House could
potentially be considered an infraction under this clause of Rule
XLIII, the Standards Committee has issued advisory opinions touching
on some of the rules which specifically pertain to Members' conduct.
In addition to the restrictions contained in the Code of Conduct,
Rules XLIV (Financial Disclosure), XLV (Prohibition on Unofficial
Office Accounts), XLVI (Limitations on Use of the Frank), XLVII
(Limitations of Outside Employment and Earned Income) have been
addressed by the committee in its Ethics Manual.
Sec. 8 . Code of Ethics for Government Service
A Code of Ethics to be adhered to by all government employees,
including office holders, was adopted by concurrent resolution in
1958. 72 Stat. pt. 2, B12, July 11, 1958. H. Con. Res. 175, 85-2. This
code requires that any person in government service should, among
other things, give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; never
accept favors or benefits under circumstances which ``might be
construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his
governmental duties;'' engage in no business with the government,
either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the
conscientious performance of his governmental duties; and never use
any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of
governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.
The Standards Committee has indicated that the Code of Ethics is
an expression of traditional standards of conduct which continues to
be applicable, even though the code was enacted merely in the form of
a concurrent
[[Page 583]]
resolution. The Committee has pointed out that although the resolution
may have expired with the adjournment of the Congress in which it was
adopted, the principles of conduct for government officials expressed
therein did not. H. Rept. No. 94-1364 (In re Sikes).
The ethical standards of this code have provided the basis for
disciplinary proceedings against Members. See H. Rept. No. 100-506 (In
re Biaggi). In one instance, charges concerning the use of a Member's
official position for pecuniary gain were heard by the committee. The
committee found that the Member had failed to report his ownership of
certain stock, and that he bought stock in a bank following active
efforts in his official capacity to obtain a charter for the bank. H.
Rept. No. 94-1364 (In re Sikes). These charges resulted in a reprimand
of the Member. 94-2, July 29, 1976, p 24380.
Sec. 9 . Violations of Statutes
Generally
The Members of Congress, unless immunized by the Speech or Debate
Clause of the Constitution (Manual Sec. 93), are subject to the same
penalties under the criminal laws as are all citizens. Deschler Ch 12
Sec. 3. Indeed, the Members are specifically or impliedly referred to
in a number of statutes which impose criminal or civil penalties for
particular forms of misconduct, and the violation of such a statute
may be considered by the Standards Committee in recommending
disciplinary actions to the House. Thus, in 1988, a Member's
conviction under 18 USC Sec. 201g of accepting an illegal gratuity was
cited as one of the grounds for the committee's recommendation that
the Member be expelled. H. Rept. No. 100-506 (In re Biaggi).
Any disciplinary measure which the House invokes against a Member
for violation of such a statute is separate and distinct from
sanctions which may be sought by law enforcement authorities at the
state or federal level. Criminal prosecution may precede or follow
committee investigation or House censure for the same offense. See
U.S. v Diggs, 613 F2d 788 (D.C. Cir. 1979), and 96-1, July 31, 1979,
pp 21584-92. In this regard, the House rules authorize the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct to report to the appropriate federal
or state authorities, with the approval of the House, any substantial
evidence of a violation of an applicable law by a Member, officer, or
employee of the House, which may have been disclosed in a committee
investigation. Rule X clause 4(e)(1). Manual Sec. 698.
[[Page 584]]
Conviction as Basis for Committee Action
A rule of the Standards Committee provides that if a Member,
officer, or employee is convicted of a criminal offense for which a
sentence of at least one year may be imposed, the committee must
conduct a preliminary inquiry to review the evidence of such offense
and to determine whether it constitutes a violation over which the
committee is given jurisdiction. If the committee determines that an
offense was committed over which it has jurisdiction, the committee
must hold a disciplinary hearing for the sole purpose of determining
what action to recommend to the House respecting such offense. Comm.
Rule 16, adopted in 1993.
The committee may review evidence presented at the Member's trial,
including the trial transcript, transcripts of recorded phone
conversations and oral intercepts. H. Rept. No. 100-506 (In re
Biaggi).
In 1980, charges involving alleged bribes of Members of Congress
(Abscam) led to investigations by both the Standards Committee and the
Department of Justice. 96-2, Feb. 4, 1980, p 1611. The committee was
authorized to conduct an inquiry into such alleged improper conduct,
to coordinate its investigation with the Justice Department, to enter
into agreements with the Justice Department, and to participate, by
special counsel, in any judicial proceeding concerning or relating to
the inquiry. 96-2, Mar. 27, 1980, pp 6995-6998 [H. Res. 608]. For a
similar resolution on the same subject, see H. Res. 67, Mar. 4, 1981.
The ensuing disciplinary actions were based on bribery convictions
or findings as to the receipt of money by a Member for exercising his
influence in the House. These actions resulted in the expulsion of one
Member (see H. Rept. No. 96-1387, In re Myers) and the initiation of
disciplinary proceedings against other Members which were mooted
because of their resignations. (See H. Rept. No. 96-856, In re Flood;
H. Rept. No. 96-1537, In re Jenrette; H. Rept. No. 97-110, In re
Lederer.)
In 1988, a Member's conviction under 18 USC Sec. 201 of accepting
an illegal gratuity, the Member having interceded to further the
interests of a company doing business with the U.S. Navy, was cited as
one of the grounds for the committee's recommendation that the Member
be expelled. H. Rept. No. 100-506 (In re Biaggi).
Sec. 10 . Misuse of Hiring Allowance; False Claims
The House rules prohibit a Member from retaining anyone under his
payroll authority who does not perform duties commensurate with the
compensation he receives. Rule XLIII clause 8, as amended by the
Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Sec. 802. Closely related to this rule is
the False Claims
[[Page 585]]
Act (31 USC Sec. 3729) which imposes liability on persons making
claims against the government knowing such claims to be false or
fraudulent. See also 18 USC Sec. 287 (criminal penalties for false
claims). Because a Member must formally authorize salary payments to
his aides, he may be found to have violated federal law if he knows
that such payments are being made to an aide who is not doing official
work commensurate with such pay, or if he is drawing on clerk-hire
funds to meet his own personal or congressional expenses. See U.S. v
Diggs, 613 F2d 988 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982
(1980). The False Claims Act is applicable where a Member submits
false travel vouchers to the Clerk of the House. See U.S. ex rel.
Hollander v Clay, 420 F Supp 853 (D.D.C. 1976). Liability under the
Act likewise arises where a Member has falsely certified certain long
distance phone calls as being official calls in order to obtain
reimbursement for them. U.S. v Eilberg, 507 F Supp 267 (E.D.Pa. 1980).
Sec. 11 . Discrimination in Employment
Clause 9 of the Code of Official Conduct contains provisions
barring discrimination against any individual with respect to
compensation or other conditions of employment because of such
individual's race, color, religion, sex, handicap, age, or national
origin. Rule XLIII. Manual Sec. 939. The Standards Committee has
concluded that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination in
employment that is prohibited by clause 9, and in one case it issued a
letter of reproval to a Member for his conduct in interacting with two
female employees on his staff. H. Rept. No. 101-293, 1989 (In re
Bates).
In 1993, the House adopted Rule LI, reiterating the prohibition in
clause 9 against discrimination in employment practices and
establishing grievance procedures for consideration of alleged
violations. Such procedures include (1) counseling and mediation; (2)
formal complaint, hearing, and review by an Office of Fair Employment
Practices; and (3) final review by a Review Panel. Manual Sec. 946a.
Sec. 12 . Campaign Fund Irregularities
Members of the House are governed by many restrictions and
regulations concerning the use of campaign funds, and must comply with
various campaign finance procedures. These requirements are found
primarily in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. 2 USC
Secs. 431 et seq. Under this statute, the Federal Election Commission
has been established as an independent regulatory agency with
jurisdiction over federal campaign finance practices. 2 USC
Secs. 437c-438.
[[Page 586]]
The House rules require that Members use campaign funds solely for
campaign purposes, and specifically prohibit the use of campaign funds
for personal use. The rules also provide that any proceeds from
testimonials or other fund-raising events are to be treated by Members
as campaign contributions. Members must keep campaign funds separate
from personal funds and they may not convert campaign funds to
personal use except for reimbursement for legitimate, verifiable prior
campaign expenses, and may not expend campaign funds for other than
bona fide campaign or political purposes. Rule XLIII clauses 6, 7.
While compaign funds may be invested, when a candidate borrows money
from his own campaign a presumption is raised that he is receiving a
personal benefit--i.e., the use of the money. The committee has taken
the position that any use of campaign funds which personally benefits
the Member rather than exclusively and solely benefiting the campaign
is not a ``bona fide campaign purpose.'' H. Rept. No. 99-933; H. Rept.
No. 100-526.
On several occasions in the 1980's, the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct investigated Members for transferring campaign funds
to personal accounts or borrowing from their campaign funds. The
committee found violations of Rule XLIII clause 6 in each case, and
issued separate reports condemning the practice. See for example H.
Rept. No. 96-930, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. (1980); H. Rept. No. 99-933,
99th Cong. 2d Sess. (1986).
In the 95th Congress, the House adopted a report (H. Rept. No. 95-
1742) of the Standards Committee recommending the reprimand of a
Member for his failure to report a campaign contribution. 95-2, Oct.
13, 1978, p 37005 (McFall). Another Member was reprimanded in the same
Congress on the basis of a report of the committee (H. Rept. No. 95-
1743) finding that he had (1) received a campaign contribution and
failed to report it as required by law, (2) converted a campaign
contribution to personal use, and (3) testified falsely to the
committee under oath. 95-2, Oct. 13, 1978, p 37009 (Roybal).
Sec. 13 . Solicitation of Contributions From Government Employees
A federal statute prohibits Members of Congress (and candidates
for Congress) from soliciting political contributions from employees
of the House as well as other federal government employees. 18 USC
Sec. 602. Under this statute, it must actually be known that the
person who is being solicited is a federal employee. Inadvertent
solicitations to persons on a mailing list during a general fund-
raising campaign are not prohibited. H. Rept. No. 96-422. Since the
statute by its terms is directed at protecting ``employees'' it does
not prevent one Member from soliciting another Member. See 6 Can-
[[Page 587]]
non Sec. 401 (in which the House adopted a resolution construing the
predecessor statute).
In 1985, the Standards Committee initiated a preliminary
investigation into charges that a ``Dear Colleague'' letter had been
used to solicit Members' staffs in House office buildings. However,
the committee took the view that the statute was directed against
coercive activities--that is, political ``shakedowns''--and concluded
that, in the absence of any evidence of ``victimization''--i.e.,
coercion of congressional staff--the solicitations were not precluded
by that law. H. Rept. No. 99-177. The committee concluded, however,
that neither staff (paid or volunteer) while on official time, nor
federal office space at any time, should be used to prepare or
distribute material involving solicitations of political
contributions. See also H. Rept. No. 99-1019.
Sec. 14 . Limitations on Earned Income; Honoraria
A House rule places restrictions upon the amount of outside-earned
income a Member or officer or employee may receive. This provision
limits the amount of aggregate outside-earned income in a calendar
year to a certain percentage of one's yearly congressional salary.
Rule XLVII clause 1. Excluded from this limitation is income from
certain sources, such as royalties from established publishers. Clause
3(e). The limitation applies to earned income for personal services,
rather than monies that are essentially a return on equity; in this
regard, the facts of a particular case will be regarded as
controlling, and not how such monies are characterized. Advisory
Opinion No. 13, House Select Committee on Ethics, 95th Cong.
A restriction against honoraria is imposed by Rule XLIII clause 5
and Rule XLVII clause 1. In 1989, special outside counsel concluded
that Speaker Wright had retained excessive honoraria and other outside
income, styled as ``royalties,'' which he accepted from special
interest groups from the sale of his book. Report of the Special
Outside Counsel in the Matter of Speaker James C. Wright, Jr.,
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Feb. 21, 1989, p 3. In
1995, Rule XLVII was amended by adding a new clause 3 to restrict
advance payment on copyright royalties and requiring advance Standards
Committee approval of usual and customary contractual terms (H. Res.
299, Dec. 22, 1995).
Sec. 15 . Acceptance of Gifts
The House rules have included a gift ban since 1968. In 1995, the
House adopted new Rule LII, which bars the acceptance of all gifts
except those expressly permitted by the rule. (See H. Res. 250, Nov.
16, 1995, p
[[Page 588]]
XX.) The House Standards Committee in the 96th Congress recommended
that the House censure a Member for misconduct which included the
acceptance of gifts of money from a person with a ``direct interest in
legislation'' before Congress. The committee determined that certain
checks which had been marked ``loans'' were not in fact true loans. H.
Rept. No. 96-930, In re Wilson. On the basis of this and other
violations, the House, after rejecting a motion to recommit that would
have permitted a reprimand, voted to censure. 96-2, June 10, 1980, pp
13801-20. In 1988, the committee concluded that a Member's acceptance
of illegal gratuities in trips to St. Maarten and Florida established
per se violations of the gift rule since those events, both
individually and in the aggregate, far exceeded the $100 limit then
imposed by Rule XLIII clause 4. H. Rept. No. 100-506 (In re Biaggi).
In 1977, the Standards Committee was empowered to investigate the
alleged receipt by Members of ``things of value'' from the Korean
government. 95-1, Feb. 9, 1977, pp 3966-68. Subsequently, the House
adopted a committee report (H. Rept. No. 95-1741), recommending the
reprimand of a Member on the basis of the committee's finding that he
had failed to disclose, in a questionnaire sent to all Members by the
committee, his receipt of currency and valuables worth more than $100
from representatives of Korea. 95-2, Oct. 13, 1978, p 36976 [H. Res.
1414, In re Wilson].
Sec. 16 . Financial Disclosure
Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA) requires
Members, officers, and certain employees of the House to file an
annual Financial Disclosure Statement. 5 USC App 6 Secs. 101-111. This
law, which is incorporated into House Rule XLIV (Manual Sec. 940), was
intended to regulate and monitor possible conflicts of interest due to
outside financial holdings. H. Doc. No. 95-73 (1977), Commission on
Administrative Review, pp 9 et seq.
The House has had a disclosure rule since 1968. In the 94th
Congress, the House reprimanded a Member for certain conduct occurring
during prior Congresses which included failure to make proper
financial disclosures. 94-2, July 29, 1976, p 34380 (Sikes). In 1988,
the House Standards Committee concluded that a Member had accepted
certain gifts that were subject to mandatory disclosure under EIGA. H.
Rept. No. 100-506 (In re Biaggi).
Sec. 17 . Professional Practice Restrictions
Members are subject to various restrictions relating to their
professional affiliations while serving in the House. Thus, Members
are prohibited from receiving compensation for legal services before
agencies of the federal gov-
[[Page 589]]
ernment. 18 USC Sec. 205. See also House Rule XLVII clause 2. Under
this rule, Members, officers, and certain senior employees may not:
Receive compensation from affiliation with a firm providing
professional services for compensation which involve a
fiduciary relationship.
Permit their name to be used by any such firm or other entity.
Practice a profession for compensation which involves a
fiduciary relationship.
Serve for compensation on the board of directors of any
association, corporation, or other entity.
Receive compensation for teaching without prior notification
and approval.
Sec. 18 . Acts Committed in Prior Congress or Before Becoming a Member
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 amended Rule X clause 4(e)(2)(C) to
establish a general time limitation on investigations by the Standards
Committee. The committee may not, under this Act, investigate
allegations of ethics violations occurring before the third previous
Congress unless it determines that such matters are directly related
to an alleged violation which occurred in a more recent Congress. See
Manual Sec. 698. This provision took effect Jan. 1, 1990.
Historically, it has been within the prerogative of the House to
censure a Member for misconduct occurring in a prior Congress
notwithstanding his reelection (Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16). However, the
question of whether the offense was known to his constituency at the
time of his election is a factor to be considered. 2 Hinds Sec. 1286.
Thus, in 1976, the Standards Committee recommended that a Member be
reprimanded for certain conduct occurring during prior Congresses
which involved financial irregularities, but declined to recommend
punishment for prior conflict-of-interest conduct which had occurred
in 1961, where such conduct had apparently been known to a
constituency which had continually reelected him. H. Rept. No. 94-
1364. This report was subsequently adopted by the House. 94-2, July
29, 1976, p 24380.
The House has jurisdiction under art. I Sec. 5 of the Constitution
to inquire into the misconduct of a Member occurring prior to his last
election and to impose at least those sanctions falling short of
expulsion. H. Rept. No. 96-351 (In re Diggs). (Compare 2 Hinds
Sec. 1283.) Expulsion, on the other hand, thus far has been applied to
Members only with respect to offenses occurring during their terms of
office and not to action taken by them prior to their election.
Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 13. A resolution calling for the expulsion of a
Member was reported adversely by the Standards Committee, where the
Member had been convicted of bribery under California law for acts
occur-
[[Page 590]]
ring while he served as a county tax assessor and before his election
to the House; the committee found that although the conviction related
to the Member's moral turpitude, it did not relate to his official
conduct while a Member of Congress. H. Rept. No. 94-1478, In re
Hinshaw.
If a Member's term of office expires before a pending resolution
of expulsion against him can be agreed to, the proceedings are
discontinued. 2 Hinds Sec. 1276.
C. Nature and Forms of Disciplinary Measures
Sec. 19 . In General
Kinds of Disciplinary Measures
The primary disciplinary measures that may be invoked by the House
against a Member include expulsion, censure or reprimand, fines or
other economic sanctions, and deprivation of seniority or committee
status.
Reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, censure is
appropriate for more serious violations, and expulsion of a Member is
appropriate for the most serious violations. Rule 20, Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, Rules of Procedure (1993).
Generally, the type of disciplinary measure invoked will depend on
the nature of the offense charged. Where there are mitigating
circumstances, the Standards Committee sometimes issues a public
``letter of reproval.'' See, for example, H. Rept. No. 100-526 (In re
Rose). This letter may include a direction to the Member that he
apologize. See H. Rept. No. 101-293 (In re Bates). The House itself
may exact an apology from the offending Member. 2 Hinds Secs. 1650,
1657.
Effect of Court Conviction or Pendency of Judicial Proceedings
Under the former practice, where a Member had been convicted of a
crime, the House would defer taking disciplinary action until the
judicial processes had been exhausted. 6 Cannon Sec. 238. Under the
more recent practice, the House may choose--as it did in the 96th
Congress--to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Member for
conduct even when that Member has not exhausted all of his appeals in
the criminal process. H. Rept. No. 96-351 (In re Diggs). While a court
conviction may be appealed, such a course of action and its outcome
have no bearing on either the timing or the nature of the decision
reached by the House. H. Rept. No. 100-506 (In re Biaggi).
The House rules provide that a Member who is convicted of a crime
for which sentence could be two or more years imprisonment should
refrain
[[Page 591]]
from committee business and from voting in the House until judicial or
executive proceedings reinstate the Member's presumption of innocence,
or until he is reelected to the House after his conviction. Rule XLIII
clause 10.
Resolutions and Reports
A resolution proposing disciplinary action against a Member may be
called up in the House as a question of high privilege. 2 Hinds
Sec. 1254; 3 Hinds Secs. 2648-2651; 96-1, Mar. 1, 1979, pp 3746-53.
Where the Standards Committee after investigation recommends that
disciplinary action be taken against a Member, it normally files a
privileged report with the resolution proposing the action. But where
the committee dismisses the charges or issues a lesser sanction such
as a letter of reproval, the committee files its report, for the
information of the House, without an accompanying resolution. 95-2,
Oct. 6, 1978, p 34145.
Under amendments to Rule X clause 4 by the Ethics Reform Act of
1989, any letter of reproval or other administrative action of the
committee may be implemented only as a part of its report to the
House. The rule also requires that the committee report to the House
on the final disposition of any case it has voted to investigate. See
Manual Sec. 698.
A resolution adopting the committee report may be offered:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the report by
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated __________ in
the matter of Representative __________.
Consideration and Debate
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 amended Rule XXXII clause 1 to
permit an accused Member to be accompanied by counsel on the floor of
the House when the committee's recommendation on his case is under
consideration by the House. Manual Sec. 919.
Debate on a disciplinary resolution is permitted under the hour
rule. 94-2, July 29, 1976, p 24382. Under the rules adopted in the
103d Congress, debate on questions of privilege (including
disciplinary resolutions) offered from the floor is equally divided
between the proponent and a party leader, as determined by the Speaker
(Rule IX clause 2). While a wide range of discussion is permitted
during the debate on the resolution as to the Member's alleged
misconduct, language which is personally abusive is not permitted (96-
1, July 31, 1979, p 21584), and may not extend to the conduct or
criminal convictions of other Members or former Members. 95-2, Oct.
13, 1978, p 36976. Debate is confined in scope to the conduct of the
accused. 100-1, Dec. 18, 1987, p 36271.
[[Page 592]]
Since an accurate record of disciplinary proceedings is important,
the House may agree by unanimous consent to ban revisions or
extensions of remarks delivered during the floor debate. 96-2, May 29,
1980, pp 12661, 12662.
It is for the House and not the Speaker to judge the conduct of
Members. It is, accordingly, not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask
the Chair to interpret the application of a criminal statute to a
Member's conduct. 100-1, Nov. 17, 1987, p 32153.
Effect of Resignation
The resignation of a Member at a time when expulsion proceedings
against him are pending generally results in the suspension or
discontinuance of the proceedings. 2 Hinds Sec. 1275; 6 Cannon
Sec. 238. Similarly, where a Member resigns after a committee of
investigation has found him guilty of improper conduct and deserving
of censure, the House may discontinue the proceeding. 6 Cannon
Sec. 398. But the House may adopt a resolution censuring his conduct
even after his resignation has been submitted. 2 Hinds Secs. 1239,
1273, 1275.
Sec. 20 . Expulsion
The House has the power under the Constitution to expel a Member
by a two-thirds vote. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 5 clause 2. The power to
expel extends to all cases where the offense is such as to be
inconsistent with the trust and duty of the Member. In re Chapman, 166
US 661, 669 (1897). Indeed, the discretionary power of the House to
expel one of its Members has been said to be unlimited. 6 Cannon
Sec. 78. However, the House has consistently refused to expel a Member
for acts unrelated to him as a Member or to his public trust and duty.
H. Rept. No. 56-85 (1899); see also 1 Hinds Sec. 476. In 1976, an
expulsion resolution was reported adversely where a Member had been
convicted of bribery under state law for acts occurring before his
election to the House, since the conviction did not relate to his
official conduct while a Member of Congress. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 13.1.
The purpose of expulsion is not merely to provide punishment, but
to remove a Member whose character and conduct show that he is unfit
to participate in the deliberations and decisions of the House, and
whose presence in it tends to bring that body into contempt and
disgrace. 2 Hinds Sec. 1286. The fundamental governing consideration
underlying expulsion proceedings is whether the individual charged has
displayed conduct inconsistent with the trust and duty of a Member. In
re Chapman, 166 US 661, 669 (1897).
The House has considered proposals to expel on many occasions.
Expulsion was used during the Civil War against Members charged with
being
[[Page 593]]
in rebellion against the United States or with having taken up arms
against it. 2 Hinds Secs. 1261, 1262. In a more recent instance, the
House expelled a Member who had been convicted in a federal court of
bribery and conspiracy in accepting funds to perform official duties
(H. Rept. No. 96-1387). 96-2, Oct. 2, 1980, pp 28953-78. And in 1988
the Standards Committee recommended the expulsion of a Member who had
accepted an illegal gratuity, engaged in illegal trafficking,
obstructed justice, brought discredit on the House, accepted
impermissible gifts from a person or organization with an interest in
legislation, failed to disclose gifts of $250 or more in a calendar
year on annual financial disclosure statements, and accepted favors or
benefits under circumstances which might be construed as influencing
the performance of governmental duties. H. Rept. No. 100-506 (In re
Biaggi). The case terminated with the Member's resignation.
There have been many instances in which an expulsion proposal
being considered in the House has failed, either because it was not
supported by a two-thirds vote or because the House preferred some
lesser penalty, such as reprimand. This has occurred where a Member
was charged with:
Publishing an article alleged to be in violation of the
privileges of the House. 2 Hinds Sec. 1245.
Abuse of the leave to print. 1 Cannon Sec. 236.
Involvement in an affray on the floor of the House. 2 Hinds
Sec. 1643.
Assaulting a Senator. 2 Hinds Sec. 1621.
Uttering words alleged to be treasonable. 2 Hinds Secs. 1253,
1254.
Accepting money for appointing a person to the military
academy. 2 Hinds Sec. 1274.
Attempting to bribe Members of Congress by offering them
shares of stock at sums below their actual value. 2 Hinds
Sec. 1286 (the Credit Mobilier case).
Assaulting another Member for words spoken in debate. 2 Hinds
Sec. 1656.
Using offensive language on the floor and deceiving the
Speaker when the latter had attempted to control the debate. 2
Hinds Sec. 1251.
In a case in the House in 1981, arising from the Abscam
investigation, the Standards Committee recommended to the House that a
Member be expelled after he had been found guilty on all counts of an
indictment charging bribery, conspiracy, and accepting an illegal
gratuity under Title 18, U.S. Code. The committee also found
violations of House Rule XLIII clauses 1, 2, and 3. H. Rept. No. 97-
110 (Lederer). The Member resigned from the House within a week of the
vote of the committee.
Expulsion proceedings against Senators have been initiated in the
Senate pursuant to recommendations of the Senate Committee on Ethics.
See S. Rept. No. 97-187 (1981). See also 104-2, Sept. 7, 1995, p ____.
In both instances, the Senator resigned prior to a vote of the full
Senate.
[[Page 594]]
Sec. 21 . -- Procedure; Resolutions of Expulsion
Generally; Form
Expulsion proceedings may be initiated by the introduction of a
resolution containing explicit charges (2 Hinds Secs. 1254, 1261,
1262), as follows:
Whereas, the Hon. ______________, a Member of the House of
Representatives from the State of ______________, has, upon this day
______________: Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the said ______________, be, and he hereby is,
expelled from this House.
Under more recent practice allegations of misconduct have not been
included in the resolution as reported from the Standards Committee
(H. Res. 794, 96th Cong.):
Resolved, That pursuant to article I, Section 5, clause 2 of the
United States Constitution, Representative______________, be, and he
hereby is, expelled from the House of Representatives.
The resolution should be limited in its application to one Member
only, although several may be involved. Separate resolutions should be
prepared on each Member. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 13.
A resolution proposing expulsion may provide for a committee to
investigate and report on the matter. Referral of such a resolution is
normally made to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 13. The resolution is subject to the motion to lay
on the table. 94-2, Oct. 1, 1976, p 35111.
A resolution to expel a Member presents a question of the
privileges of the House (96-1, July 30, 1979, pp 21297, 21298), and
may be called up by any Member as privileged under the Constitution
and under Rule IX whether or not it has been reported favorably or
adversely from committee. 94-2, Oct. 1, 1976, p 35111. Being
privileged, the proposition supersedes the regular order of business.
2 Hinds Sec. 2648.
As already noted, the resolution of expulsion must be agreed to by
a two-thirds vote under the Constitution. An amendment proposing
expulsion may be agreed to by a majority vote, but on the proposition
as amended a two-thirds vote is required. 2 Hinds Sec. 1274. In this
regard, it was held in 1921 that a motion to censure was not germane
to the motion to expel. The amendment proposing censure rather than
expulsion having been ruled out as not germane, the House then
rejected the motion to expel, not mustering the required two-thirds
majority. The proposition to censure was then offered as a question of
privilege from the floor and was agreed to. 6 Cannon Sec. 236. Compare
5 Hinds Sec. 5923.
[[Page 595]]
Debate; Right of Member To Be Heard
Floor debate on a resolution of expulsion is under the hour rule.
8 Cannon Sec. 2448. In one recent instance, during debate on an
expulsion resolution, the Member charged was yielded one-half of the
hour in which to speak or yield in his behalf. 96-2, Oct. 2, 1980, pp
28953-78 (Myers). A Member whose expulsion is proposed may be
permitted to present a written defense. 2 Hinds Sec. 1273.
Sec. 22 . Censure; Reprimand
Generally
Censure and reprimand are two forms of discipline that may be
administered pursuant to that provision of the Constitution (art. I
Sec. 5 clause 2) empowering the House to punish a Member for
disorderly behavior. Manual Sec. 63. These punitive measures are
ordered in the House by a majority of those voting, a quorum being
present. The House itself must order the sanction. The Speaker cannot
on his own authority censure a Member. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16.
During its history, the House has censured or reprimanded numerous
Members or Delegates. The House has on occasion made a distinction
between censure and reprimand, the latter being a somewhat lesser
punitive measure than censure. A censure is administered by the
Speaker to the Member at the bar of the House, perhaps in a manner
specified in the resolution, as by the reading of the censure
resolution (96-1, July 31, 1979, p 21592; 96-2, June 10, 1980, p
13820), whereas a reprimand is administered to the Member ``standing
in his place'' or merely by the adoption of a committee report.
Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16.
If necessary, the Member to be censured may be arrested and
brought to the bar for the Speaker's pronouncement. 2 Hinds
Secs. 1251, 1305. The censure appears in full in the Journal. 2 Hinds
Secs. 1251, 1656; 6 Cannon Sec. 236. In rare instances, the House has
reconsidered a vote of censure (2 Hinds Sec. 1653) or expunged a
censure from the Journals of a preceding Congress (4 Hinds Secs. 2792,
2793).
Sec. 23 . -- Grounds; Particular Conduct
The conduct for which censure may be imposed is not limited to
acts relating to the Member's official duties. The power to censure
extends to any reprehensible conduct which brings the House into
disrepute. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16.
[[Page 596]]
Many early cases of censure involved the use of unparliamentary
language, assaults on a Member, or insults to the House by the
introduction of offensive resolutions. See 2 Hinds Secs. 1246-1249,
1251, 1256, 1305, 1621, 1656. During the Civil War, some Members,
whose sympathies lay with the Confederacy, were censured for uttering
treasonable words. 2 Hinds Secs. 1252-1254. Censure was also invoked
on the basis of evidence of corrupt acts by a Member. 2 Hinds
Secs. 1239, 1273, 1274, 1286; 6 Cannon Sec. 239.
More recent cases have seen censure or reprimand invoked against a
Member for:
Ignoring the processes and authority of the New York State
courts, and improper use of government funds. H. Rept. No. 90-
27; Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16.1 (Powell). Censure recommendation
rejected in favor of other penalties. Sec. 1, supra.
Failing to report certain financial holdings in violation of
Rule XLIII, the Code of Official Conduct, and for investing in
stock in a bank, the establishment of which he was promoting,
in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service. H.
Rept. No. 94-1364; recommendation of reprimand approved, 94-2,
July 29, 1976, pp 24379-82 (Sikes).
Receiving a campaign contribution and failing to report it as
required by law. H. Rept. No. 95-1742; Member reprimanded, 95-
2, Oct. 13, 1978, p 37005 (McFall).
Receiving a campaign contribution and failing to report it,
converting a campaign contribution to personal use, and
testifying falsely to the committee under oath. H. Rept. No.
95-1743; Member reprimanded, 95-2, Oct. 13, 1978, p 37009
(Roybal).
Unjust enrichment through increasing an office employee's
salary. H. Rept. No. 96-351; censure approved, 96-1, July 31,
1979, pp 21584-92 (Diggs).
Receiving money from a person with direct interest in
legislation in violation of clause 4, Rule XLIII, and for
transferring campaign funds into office and personal accounts.
H. Rept. No. 96-930; censure approved, 96-2, June 10, 1980, p
13820 (Wilson).
Sexual misconduct with a page. H. Rept. No. 98-295 (In re
Studds); H. Rept. No. 98-296 (In re Crane); Members censured,
98-1, July 20, 1983, pp 20020, 20030.
Filing false financial disclosure statements under the Ethics
in Government Act. H. Rept. No. 98-891 (In re Hansen);
reprimand approved, 98-2, July 31, 1984, pp 21650, 21652.
``Ghost voting,'' improperly diverting government resources,
and maintaining a ``ghost employee'' on his staff. H. Rept. No.
100-485 (In re Murphy). Member reprimanded, 100-1, Dec. 18,
1987, p 36266.
Seeking improper dismissal of parking tickets and for
misstatements of fact in a memorandum relating to an
associate's criminal probation record. H. Rept. No. 101-610 (In
re Frank). Member reprimanded, 101-2, July 26, 1990, p ____.
[[Page 597]]
The power of censure has also been invoked in the Senate. Deschler
Ch 12 Sec. 16. In recent years, the Senate has censured or denounced
one of its Members for:
Noncooperation with and abuse of certain Senate committees
during an investigation of his conduct. 83-2, Dec. 2, 1954, p
16392 (Joseph McCarthy). See also Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16.2.
Exercising the power and influence of his office to obtain and
use for his personal benefit funds from the public raised
through political testimonials. 90-1, June 23, 1967, p 17005-20
(Dodd). See also Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16.3.
Acts and omissions regarding unsigned vouchers for the use of
Senate funds, inaccurate financial disclosure statements, and
unreported campaign funds and receipts. 96-1, Oct. 11, 1979, p
27767 (Talmadge).
Sec. 24 . -- Censure Resolutions
Generally
The censure of a Member is imposed pursuant to a resolution
adopted by the House. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16. The resolution may take
the following form (from 2 Hinds Sec. 1259):
Resolved, That the Member from ____________, Mr. ____________, in
____________________ has been guilty of a violation of the rules and
privileges of the House and merits the censure of the House for the
same.
Resolved, That said ______ be now brought to the bar of the House
by the Sergeant at Arms, and the censure of the House be
administered there by the Speaker.
The resolution may call for direct and immediate action by the
House. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 16. Such a resolution should be drafted so
as to apply to only one Member, although two or more Members may be
involved. 2 Hinds Secs. 1240, 1621.
A resolution of censure presents a question of privilege (3 Hinds
Secs. 2649-2651) and may be entertained as privileged (6 Cannon
Sec. 239). The Speaker may recognize a Member to offer a resolution of
censure after the question on agreeing to a resolution calling for
expulsion has been decided adversely. 6 Cannon Sec. 236. The House may
amend a resolution of censure to provide for other action to be taken
against the Member and then adopt the resolution as amended. Deschler
Ch 12 Sec. 16.1. A resolution reported from committee may be adopted
with an amendment converting the resolution from one of censure to one
of reprimand. 95-2, Oct. 13, 1978, p 37009.
Debate
Floor debate on a resolution of censure is under the hour rule.
94-2, July 29, 1976, p 24382; 96-1, July 31, 1979, pp 21584-92. In the
103d
[[Page 598]]
Congress, Rule IX was amended to equally divide debate on any question
of privilege offered from the floor between the proponent and a party
leader as determined by the Speaker. Rule IX clause 2.
A Member controlling debate under the hour rule may yield time to
the Member being charged. 94-2, July 29, 1976, p 24382. That Member
may, after declining to speak, yield all of his time to another
Member. 96-1, July 31, 1979, pp 21584-92. It has been held, however,
that if the previous question is moved on the proposition to censure,
the effect may be to prevent him from making an explanation or defense
(5 Hinds Sec. 5459) and once the House has voted to censure, it is
then too late for the Member to be heard. 2 Hinds Sec. 1259.
Effect of Apologies or Explanations
In situations involving censure for unparliamentary language or
behavior, the House may accept an apology or explanation from the
Member and terminate the proceedings. 2 Hinds Secs. 1250, 1257, 1258,
1652. The resolution of censure may be withdrawn (2 Hinds Sec. 1250),
or, if the House has already voted to censure, it may reconsider its
vote and decide against censure (2 Hinds Sec. 1653).
Sec. 25 . Fines; Restitution of Funds
Pursuant to its constitutional authority to punish its Members
(U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 5 clause 2), the House may levy a fine as a
disciplinary measure against a Member for certain misconduct. Deschler
Ch 12 Sec. 17. The fine may be coupled with certain other disciplinary
measures deemed appropriate by the House. Thus, in one instance, the
House disciplined a Member (for improper expenditure of House funds
for private purposes) by imposing a fine of $25,000, to be deducted on
a monthly basis from his salary. 91-1, Jan. 3, 1969, pp 29, 34. In
another instance, in the 96th Congress, a Member was required to make
restitution of monies in the amount which he had personally benefited
in his misuse of the congressional clerk-hire allowance. 96-1, July
31, 1979, pp 21584-92. Fines imposed by the House are separate and
distinct from those for which a Member might be liable under federal
law.
Sec. 26 . Deprivation of Status; Caucus Rules
Deprivation of seniority status is a form of disciplinary action
that may be invoked by the House against a Member under the U.S.
Constitution (art. I Sec. 5 clause 2). Thus, among the sanctions
imposed by the House against a Member (Adam Clayton Powell) was a
reduction in seniority to that of
[[Page 599]]
a first-term Congressman. Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 18.2. A Member also may
be reduced in committee seniority as a result of party discipline
enforced through the machinery of his party caucus. Deschler Ch 12
Sec. 18.1.
The chairman of a committee of the House may be subjected to a
variety of disciplinary measures for misconduct in his capacity as
chairman, including removal from office. In one instance, a party
caucus removed a Member from his office as chairman of a committee
based on a report disclosing certain improprieties concerning his
travel expenses and in clerk-hiring practices. Deschler Ch 12
Sec. 9.2. Where consistent with the House rules, the members of a
committee may take action against its chairman by restricting his
authority to appoint special subcommittees (Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 12.4)
or transfer authority from the chairman to the membership and the
subcommittee chairmen (Deschler Ch 12 Sec. 12.3). The House through
the adoption of a resolution may restrict the power of the chairman to
provide for funds for investigations by subcommittees. Deschler Ch 12
Sec. 12.2.
Step-aside Rules
The party caucus or conference rules may require that the chairman
or ranking minority member step aside from those positions upon
indictment or on conviction of a felony. In the 104th Congress, for
example, Rule 50 of the Democratic Caucus rules specified that if the
senior Democratic member on a committee is indicted for a felony
punishable by confinement for two or more years, he must step aside in
favor of the next ranking member. In the same Congress, Rules 25, 26
and 27 of the Republican Conference also addressed similar situations.