CLEAN Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Pappas, Chris [D-NH-1]
- Committees
- Rules Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 21, 2026
Bottom line
The CLEAN Act aims to solidify and refine the independent ethics oversight function within the House of Representatives by making the Office of Congressional Ethics a permanent, statutory body with enhanced due process protections and clearer operational guidelines.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the CLEAN Act, permanently establishes the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) by enacting House Resolution 895 of the 110th Congress into permanent law. It also introduces several modifications to the OCE's operations, including term limits for board members, a deadline for filling vacancies, explicit rights to counsel for individuals under review, and a clarification of the OCE's status for certain investigative powers.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that making the Office of Congressional Ethics permanent ensures stable, independent oversight of congressional ethics, fostering greater transparency and accountability for members of Congress. They contend that the modifications, such as term limits and the right to counsel, strengthen both the integrity of the institution and the fairness of the investigative process, ultimately restoring public trust in government.
Opponents contend
Opponents, or those wary of the OCE's expanded role, might argue that making the office permanent could infringe on the House's traditional prerogative to govern its own internal ethics processes, potentially creating an overly powerful or unaccountable body. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for politicization of an independent body or the disruption caused by new term limits for experienced board members.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions and implications quickly.
Section 2, introductory text
Permanent Establishment of the Office of Congressional Ethics
This provision makes House Resolution 895 from the 110th Congress, which originally established the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), into permanent law. This means the OCE would no longer rely on periodic reauthorization by each new Congress, ensuring its continuous operation as a statutory entity within the House of Representatives.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that codifying the OCE into permanent law is crucial for its independence and effectiveness, preventing political interference that can arise during reauthorization debates. This ensures consistent ethics oversight regardless of changes in congressional leadership or priorities.
Critics contend
Some critics might contend that making the OCE permanent removes a key mechanism for congressional accountability over the body itself, preferring that each Congress retain the ability to review and modify its structure and mandate through periodic reauthorization.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for a stable, independent ethics oversight body against the traditional prerogative of the House to control its own rules and internal structures, which includes the ability to periodically review and renew the OCE's mandate.
Section 2(1)
OCE Treated as Standing Committee for Investigative Powers
This clause specifies that the Office of Congressional Ethics shall be treated as a standing committee of the House of Representatives for the purposes of section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. This particular section of law grants committees the authority to issue subpoenas and administer oaths during investigations.
Section 2(3)
Term Limits for OCE Board Members
This provision establishes a new term limit for members of the OCE board, stipulating that no person shall serve for more than four 2-year terms. This introduces a cap on how long an individual can serve on the independent ethics oversight body.
Section 2(4)
Deadline for Filling Board Vacancies
This clause mandates that any vacancy on the OCE board must be filled within 60 calendar days after it occurs. This includes vacancies resulting from the new term limits established by the Act, aiming to ensure the board remains fully staffed and operational.
Section 2(6)
Immediate Removal of Board Members Exceeding New Term Limits
This provision requires the immediate removal of any current OCE board member who, upon the enactment of this Act, is serving a term in excess of the newly established four 2-year term limit. Such members must be removed within 30 days of the Act's enactment.
Section 2(7)
Right to Counsel During OCE Reviews
This clause explicitly grants any individual who is the subject of a preliminary or second-phase review by the OCE the right to be represented by counsel. Furthermore, it states that invoking this right cannot be held negatively against them during the review process.
Section 2(8)
Protection of Constitutional Rights
This clause explicitly prohibits the Office of Congressional Ethics from taking any action that would deny any person any right or protection guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. It serves as an overarching safeguard for constitutional liberties within the OCE's operations.
This provision states that the Office of Congressional Ethics shall be treated as a standing committee of the House of Representatives for purposes of section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4301(i)). This specific section of the Legislative Reorganization Act grants committees the authority to issue subpoenas and administer oaths.
Section 2(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy statutory language. However, it requires external legal knowledge to fully grasp its impact.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this technical clarification provides the OCE with clear, statutory authority for its investigative functions, aligning its powers to compel testimony and documents with those of other House committees. This strengthens the OCE's ability to conduct thorough and effective ethics reviews.
Case against: Critics concerned about the scope of the OCE's power might argue that this provision, while technical, grants significant authority to an unelected body. They might contend that such powers should be exercised with greater direct congressional oversight, rather than through a blanket statutory reference.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for the OCE's investigative capabilities, as it formally underpins its power to compel information from individuals and entities relevant to its inquiries.