[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c12_txt-2]
[Page 1699-1701]
CHAPTER 12
Conduct or Discipline of Members, Officers, or Employees
A. INTRODUCTORY; PARTICULAR KINDS OF MISCONDUCT
Sec. 1. In General; Codes of Conduct
Prior to the 90th Congress,(1) there was no rule setting
forth a formal code of conduct for Congressmen. However, in 1967 and
1968 the rules of the House were amended to (1) make the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct a standing committee of the House; (2)
establish, as a new Rule XLIII, a Code of Official Conduct for Members,
officers, and employees of the House; (3) require Members, officers,
and certain key aides to disclose financial interests pursuant to
procedures outlined in new Rule XLIV.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pre-1936 precedents on the punishment and expulsion of Members may
be found at 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1236-1289 and 6
Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 236-239.
This chapter includes precedents through the 94th Congress,
2d Session.
2. 114 Cong. Rec. 8802, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 1, 1968 [H. Res.
1099, amending H. Res. 418]; Rule XLIII, Rule XLIV, House Rules
and Manual Sec. Sec. 939, 940 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Code of Official Conduct requires that each Member, officer, or
employee conduct himself so as to reflect creditably on the House and
to adhere to the spirit and letter of the rules of the House and the
rules of its committees. The code also contains provisions governing
the receipt of compensation, gifts, and honorariums, as well as the use
of campaign funds.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. As used in the Code of Official Conduct, the term ``Member''
includes the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico and each
Delegate to the House; and the term ``officer or employee of
the House of Representatives'' means any individual whose
compensation is disbursed by the Clerk of the House of
Representatives. Rule XLIII, House Rules and Manual Sec. 939
(1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 85th Congress adopted by concurrent resolution a Code of Ethics
to be adhered to by all government employees, including
officeholders.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 72 Stat. Pt. 2, B12, July 11, 1958. This Code of Ethics is a
guideline for those in government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code of Ethics for Government Service
Any person in Government service should:
[[Page 1700]]
1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country
above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.
2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the
United States and of all governments therein and never be a party
to their evasion.
3. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving to the
performance of his duties his earnest effort and best thought.
4. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways
of getting tasks accomplished.
5. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special
favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration, or not;
and never accept, for himself or his family, favors or benefits
under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons
as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.
6. Make no private promises of any kind binding on the duties
of office, since a Government employee has no private word which
can be binding on public duty.
7. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly
or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious
performance of his governmental duties.
8. Never use any information coming to him confidentially in
the performance of governmental duties as a means for making
private profit.
9. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
10. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that a public
office is a public trust.
In House Report No. 94-1364, 94th Congress second session, House
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, ``In the matter of a
Complaint against Representative Robert L. F. Sikes,'' July 23, 1976,
the committee indicated that the Code of Ethics was an expression of
traditional standards of conduct which continued to be applicable even
though the code was enacted in the form of a concurrent resolution in
1958 (pp. 7-8):
The Committee believes that these standards of conduct
traditionally applicable to Members of the House are perhaps best
expressed in the Code of Ethics for Government Service embodied in
House Concurrent Resolution 175, which was approved on July 11,
1958. Although the Code was adopted as a concurrent resolution,
and, as such, may have no legally binding effect, the Committee
believes the Code of Ethics for Government Service nonetheless
remains an expression of the traditional standards of conduct
applicable to Members of the House prior both to its adoption and
the adoption of the Code of Official Conduct in 1968. As is
explained in House Report No. 1208, 85th Congress, 1st Session,
August 21, 1957:
House Concurrent Resolution 175 is essentially a
declaration of fundamental principles of conduct that should be
observed by all persons in the public service. It spells out in
clear and straight forward language long-recognized concepts of
the high obligations and responsibilities, as well as the
rights and privileges, attendant upon services for our
Government. It reaffirms the traditional standard--that those
holding public
[[Page 1701]]
office are not owners of authority but agents of public
purpose--concerning which there can be no disagreement and to
which all Federal employees unquestionably should adhere. It is
not a mandate. It creates no new crime or penalty. Nor does it
impose any positive legal requirement for specific acts or
omissions. (Emphasis added.)
Thus, even assuming that House Concurrent Resolution 175 may
have ``died'' with the adjournment of the particular Congress in
which it was adopted, as one commentator seems to suggest, the
traditional standards of ethical conduct which were expressed
therein did not.