The House’s independent ethics watchdog, the Office of Congressional Conduct (OCC), has finally been reactivated after a prolonged delay, marking a pivotal moment in efforts to restore transparency and accountability in Congress. The board, which had been awaiting final appointments since the start of the 119th Congress, was officially read aloud by the House clerk, allowing the office to resume its investigative work. This development comes after months of pressure from advocacy groups and lawmakers who had demanded the Speaker to finalize the board’s appointments.
Among the four newly appointed board members, former House clerk Karen Haas will serve as chair, while ex-Rep. Bill Luther will co-chair the board. Other members include former House clerk Lorraine Miller and former Rep. Lynn Westmoreland. The reappointment of these members, many of whom had already served in the previous Congress, suggests a continuity in the Office’s operations despite the prolonged delay. The OCC’s ability to conduct investigations now hinges on the board’s formal appointment, which has been a critical barrier to its operations since the start of the new Congress.
The delay in appointing the board has been attributed to several factors, including a rules package that required the board to formally appoint its staff and change the office’s name, effectively stalling its operations. While House GOP leadership initially suggested that the delay was an attempt to slow down the OCC’s ability to function, former GOP Rep. Porter Goss, who helped create the OCC in 2008, claimed the inaction might have been an effort to effectively kill the office altogether. Despite these claims, the OCC’s reactivation has been welcomed by advocates of transparency, who see it as a crucial tool for holding lawmakers accountable.
The OCC was established in 2008 by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a response to a series of ethics scandals, including the high-profile case of lobbying firm Jack Abramoff. Unlike the House Ethics Committee, which operates with limited public access, the OCC was designed to be an independent, nonpartisan body that could investigate complaints from the public and forward credible findings to the Ethics Committee. This structure was intended to provide a more transparent and public-facing mechanism for addressing misconduct allegations against lawmakers.
However, the OCC has faced significant skepticism from lawmakers and advocates alike. Some critics, including former Rep. Gregg Harper, have accused the office of being politically motivated and argue that its investigation process is often one-sided. Others, including current House members, have pointed out that the OCC has limited authority over the House Ethics Committee, which ultimately determines the consequences of misconduct allegations. Despite these criticisms, the reactivation of the OCC is seen as a potential step toward restoring public trust in Congress, which has been exceptionally low in recent years. Advocates argue that the absence of the OCC has allowed misconduct to go unchecked, and its reactivation is essential for ensuring that ethical standards are upheld in the legislative process.