Recent press reports indicate that the House leadership is considering a rules change which would diminish the scope and authority of the Office of Congressional Ethics, or OCE. This is an apparent response to the OCE's decision to forward information gathered during its investigation of the PMA Group to the Justice Department, bypassing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the process. The narrative seems to be that this is just another example of the OCE's succumbing to mission creep or of its growing beyond its intended purpose. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted against the creation of the OCE in 2007. I felt at the time that the House should be able to establish appropriate standards and to police its behavior through the Standards Committee. I still believe that we should be able to do so, but this controversy over the OCE has effectively shown that, when it comes to removing the cloud that hangs over this body relating to earmarks and to campaign contributions, this body is unwilling, through the Standards Committee, to take the necessary action to uphold the dignity of the institution.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses proposed changes to the Office of Congressional Ethics and its implications for congressional accountability.
Share
More from Jeff Flake
When I was there, I noted to President Mnangagwa that the government of Zimbabwe would be well served to have regular contact with the Ambassador before issues come up or as they come up rather than afterwards.
The Republican Party may believe or elected officials may believe that this will give them some short term benefit.
When I did, after all that we knew about what was going on and heard about from afar, when I arrived there and saw still things functioning as well as they were was a testament to what you are talking about, the resourcefulness of the…
When people say you guys talk but do not do anything, this committee and the Congress and the administration did.





