Above is a statistical summary of the actions of the Board of the OCE in the first quarter of 2013.

Click here for the Press Advisory (PDF 54KB)

Click here for the Quarterly Report (PDF 60KB)

On August 30, 2012, the Office of Congressional Ethics transmitted a referral to the Committee on Ethics of the United States House of Representatives regarding Representative Bill Owens.

Nature of Review

Representative Owens may have accepted payment of travel expenses for an officially connected trip to Taiwan from an impermissible source, resulting in an impermissible gift, in violation of federal law and House rules.

Representative Owens may have accepted payment of travel expenses for an officially connected trip to Taiwan, when that trip was in some part planned, organized, requested, or arranged by agents of a foreign principal, in violation of House rules.

OCE Recommendation

The Board of the OCE recommended that the Committee on Ethics further review the first allegation as there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Owens accepted payment of travel expenses for an officially connected trip to Taiwan from an impermissible source, resulting in an impermissible gift, in violation of federal law and House rules.

Committee Conclusion

On February 6, 2013, the Committee on Ethics released a statement indicating it would continue to gather information necessary to complete its review.  The Committee published the OCE report and findings and announced the allegations would be further reviewed pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a).

On August 30, 2012, the Office of Congressional Ethics transmitted a referral to the Committee on Ethics of the United States House of Representatives regarding Rep. Aaron Schock.

Nature of Review

In March 2012, Representative Aaron Schock may have solicited contributions for an independent expenditure-only political committee in excess of $5,000 per donor, in violation of federal law, House rules, and standards of conduct.

OCE Recommendation

The Board of the OCE recommends that the Committee on Ethics further review the above allegation because there is a substantial reason to believe that Representative Schock violated federal law, House rules, and standards of conduct.

Committee Conclusion

On February 6, 2013, the Committee on Ethics released a statement indicating it would continue to gather information necessary to complete its review.  The Committee published the OCE report and findings and announced the allegations would be further reviewed pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a).

Click here for the Press Advisory (PDF 54KB)

Click here for the Quarterly Report (PDF 63KB)

Above is a statistical summary of the actions of the Board of the OCE in the 112th Congress.

¹ Subjects of two additional preliminary reviews resigned and were no longer subject to Board or Committee jurisdiction. Therefore the Board took no further action.

² Subjects of two additional second-phase reviews resigned before the OCE completed its investigation. Therefore the Board took no further action.

³ The OCE did not investigate new matters in the fourth quarter 2012 as a result of the “blackout period” pursuant to H. Res. 895, 110th Cong. §d(2)(D) as amended.

Above is a chart of the matters that the OCE has referred to the Committee on Ethics pending release.

On February 9, 2012, the Office of Congressional Ethics transmitted a referral to the Committee on Ethics of the United States House of Representatives regarding Rep. Shelley Berkley.

Nature of Review

Representative Shelley Berkley may have violated House rules and precedent regarding conflicts of interest by advocating for the University Medical Center of Southern Nevada (“UMC”) kidney transplant program, in an effort to prevent the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) from terminating Medicare approval of that program for failing to meet CMS standards regarding patient survival. At the time Representative Berkley advocated for the UMC program, she had a financial interest in that program through her husband, a partner in Kidney Specialists of Southern Nevada, which held the contract to provide nephrology services to UMC.

If Representative Berkley advocated to CMS in order to keep the UMC kidney transplant program open while she had a financial interest in that program through her husband, she may violated House Rule 23 and House precedent regarding conflicts of interest.

OCE Recommendation

The Board of the OCE recommended the Committee further review the above allegations as there is a substantial reason to believe that Rep. Berkley advocated to CMS in order to keep the UMC kidney transplant program open while she had a financial interest in that program through her husband, in violation of House Rule 23 and House precedent regarding conflict of interest.

Committee Conclusion

On June 29, 2012, the Committee on Ethics established an investigative subcommittee regarding this matter.

On December 20, 2012, the Committee on Ethics adopted a report from the investigative subcommittee finding that Rep. Berkley had violated House Rules and other laws, rules, and standards of conduct with respect to some, but not all, of the allegations investigated related to her activities on behalf of the kidney transplant center at UMC.

On August 30, 2012, the Office of Congressional Ethics transmitted a referral to the Committee on Ethics of the United States House of Representatives regarding Representative Silvestre Reyes.

Nature of Review

Representative Silvestre Reyes may have held campaign meetings on House property.  If Representative Reyes solicited or received campaign funds or held meetings that were political in nature while on House property, he may have violated House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law.

Representative Reyes may have improperly used campaign funds to pay for certain expenses related to his daughter’s residence.  If Representative Reyes used campaign funds for personal use, he may have violated House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law.

OCE Recommendation

The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics further review the above allegation concerning whether Representative Reyes solicited or received campaign funds or held meetings that were political in nature while on House property because there is a substantial reason to believe that a violation of House rules, standards of conduct, or federal law occurred.

The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics further review the above allegation concerning whether Representative Reyes improperly used campaign funds to pay for certain expenses related to his daughter’s residence because there is a substantial reason to believe that a violation of House rules, standards of conduct, or federal law occurred.

Committee Conclusion

On November 28, 2012, the Committee on Ethics published the OCE report and findings.

Click here for the Press Advisory (PDF 54KB)

Click here for the Quarterly Report (PDF 64KB)

Above is a statistical summary of the actions of the Board of the OCE in the third Quarter of 2012.

¹ Subjects of two additional preliminary reviews that began in the previous quarter resigned and were no longer subject to Board or Committee jurisdiction. Therefore the Board too no further action.

² Subjects of two additional second-phase reviews resigned before the OCE completed its investigation. Therefore the Board took no further action.

Above is a chart of the matters that the OCE has referred to the Committee on Ethics pending release.

³ This date is calculated pursuant to Committee on Ethics Rules authorizing the Committee to postpone any reporting requirement that falls within a 60-day period before an election, in which the subject of the referral is a candidate.

On April 2, 2012, The Office of Congressional Ethics transmitted a referral to the Committee on Ethics of the United States House of Representatives regarding Representative Robert Andrews.

Nature of Review

Representative Robert Andrews may have improperly used congressional campaign and Leadership PAC funds to pay for a personal, family trip to Scotland in June 2011. Representative Andrews may have also improperly used congressional campaign funds to pay for various trips to Los Angeles in 2011 and for his daughter's graduation party in June 2011, among other potential personal uses.

OCE Recommendation

The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics recommended that the Committee on Ethics further review the above allegations concerning Representative Andrews because there is a substantial reason to believe that he improperly used congressional campaign and Leadership PAC funds for personal use, in violation of House rules and federal law.

Committee Conclusion

On August 31, 2012, the Committee on Ethics released a statement indicating it would continue to gather information necessary to complete its review. The Committee published the OCE report and findings and announced the allegations would be further reviewed pursuant to the Committee Rule 18(a).

Click here for the Press Advisory (PDF 54KB)

Click here for the Quarterly Report (PDF 61KB)

Above is a statistical summary of the actions of the Board of the OCE in the second quarter of 2012.

Above is a chart of the matters the OCE has referred to the Committee on Ethics that have not yet but must be made public.

On February 9, 2012, the Office of Congressional Ethics transmitted a referral to the Committee on Ethics of the United States House of Representatives regarding Representative Vern Buchanan.

Nature of Review

Representative Vern Buchanan's former business partner claims that Representative Buchanan made a $2.9 million lawsuit settlement agreement contingent on the business partner signing a false affidavit to be filed with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC"). The affidavit was related to allegations that individuals who contributed to Vern Buchanan for Congress received reimbursements from automobile dealerships owned by Representative Buchanan.

If Representative Buchanan attempted to influence the testimony of a witness in a preceeding before the FEC in the manner alleged, he may have violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 201, 1505, and 1512, and House Rule 23, clause 1.

OCE Recommendation

The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics recommended that the Committee on Ethics further review the above allegations because there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Buchanan attempted to influence the testimony of a witness in a proceeding before the FEC in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 201, 1505, and 1512, and House Rule 23, clause 1.

Committee Conclusion

On May 9, 2012, the Committee on Ethics released a statement indicating it would continue to gather information necessary to complete its review. The Committee published the OCE report and findings and announced the allegations would be further reviewed pursuant to the Committee Rule 18(a).

OCE Response to March 8, 2012, Letter from Patton Boggs LLP (PDF 550KB)

Q: @CongressEthics Are you worried about OCE investigations being used to score political points during this election year?

The OCE is a non-partisan, fact-finding office, with the sole purpose of investigating allegations and referring them, when appropriate, to the House Ethics Committee. It's important to note that our staff and Board are impartial and unbiased in all reviews. Accuracy is extremely important in what we do and our investigations are based purely on facts and evidence and never with regard to political party.

Q: @CongressEthics What happens if you find information during your investigation that's exculpatory? #AskOCE

OCE rule 4F deals squarely with the issue of exculpatory information. Under this rule, we turn over any exculpatory information of an alleged violation that the Board is considering when deciding whether to refer a matter for further review or dismissal to the House Ethics Committee.

Q: @CongressEthics Your blog said OCE can do an initial investigation before starting a review. What does this mean? #AskOCE

When the OCE receives credible information about an alleged violation, the office staff, coordinating with the Board Chair and Co-Chair, conducts a "reasonable initial investigation." This step ensures the accuracy of information the OCE receives and eliminates the possibility of partisan groups trying to influence the investigation. The findings of this initial review are then submitted to the Board. It's then up to them to decide whether to start an investigation, the first step of which is a 30-day preliminary review.

Q: @CongressEthics From the looks of your most recent quarterly report, the volume of OCE investigations has slowed down. Why?

Over the last few years, some have observed that the OCE has had a deterrent effect, resulting in fewer allegations of misconduct. In addition, since the beginning of this Congress our investigations have been more complex, evidence-heavy cases that have required more of the OCE's resources.