Directing the Office of Congressional Conduct to establish standards of conduct related to mental capacity of members of the House of Representatives.

Bill Number

H.Res. 1104

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Policy Area

Congress

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-03-04: Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.

Last Updated

2026-03-09T15:00:13Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This House Resolution (H. Res. 1104) aims to address concerns about the mental fitness of members of the U.S. House of Representatives by directing the creation of ethical standards for handling cases of significant cognitive impairment. It seeks to ensure that members maintain conduct that reflects creditably on the House, as required by existing House rules, while providing safe ways for staff to report issues.

Key Provisions

• Development of Standards by Office of Congressional Conduct:
• Within 180 days of adoption, the Office must create a definition for "conduct unbecoming" under House Rule XXIII (which requires members to behave in a way that upholds the House's reputation) when caused by a significant and irreversible cognitive impairment (e.g., severe mental decline that prevents proper functioning).
• The Office submits a report on this standard to the Committee on Ethics.
• The Office may consult congressional offices and external experts during development.

• Action by Committee on Ethics:
• Within 90 days of receiving the report, the Committee must either adopt the proposed standard, modify it, or issue its own version.

• Guidance for Reporting:
• The Committee on Ethics must create and publicly release clear instructions for House employees on how to confidentially report concerns about a member's mental capacity to appropriate committees or offices, ensuring safety and protection from retaliation.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• This resolution builds on House Rule XXIII by adding specific standards for cognitive impairment, which was not previously defined in detail.
• It introduces a formal process for evaluation and reporting, including whistleblower-like protections for staff, which expands the scope of ethical oversight beyond general conduct rules.
• As a House resolution, it modifies internal House procedures rather than federal law, making these changes applicable only to the House of Representatives.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Enhances oversight within the House by empowering the Office of Congressional Conduct and Committee on Ethics to address member fitness, potentially leading to more structured investigations and quicker resolutions to impairment issues.
• On Citizens: Could improve public trust in Congress by promoting accountability for elected officials' ability to serve, though it might raise concerns about privacy or politicized use against members.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as this is an internal House matter; however, it could indirectly affect U.S. legislative credibility if impairment issues delay or influence foreign policy decisions.
• Overall, it may result in fewer instances of impaired members influencing legislation, but could also increase administrative workload for ethics bodies.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• House Members: Directly subject to new standards; those with cognitive issues could face ethical reviews or restrictions.
• House Employees and Staff: Gain tools and protections for reporting concerns, potentially encouraging more disclosures.
• Office of Congressional Conduct and Committee on Ethics: Assigned new responsibilities for developing and enforcing standards, increasing their role in member accountability.
• Broader Congress and Public: Indirectly benefits through improved institutional integrity, though advocacy groups for aging or disability rights may engage on implementation.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Establishes internal House procedures that could lead to disciplinary actions (e.g., censure or resignation pressure) without requiring court involvement, but must respect due process under House rules.
• Constitutional: Touches on Article I qualifications for Congress members (age, citizenship, residency), but does not alter them; instead, it addresses fitness to serve post-election, raising questions about self-regulation versus broader democratic accountability. No direct challenge to separation of powers, as it's a House-internal rule.
• Political: Highly sensitive topic, as it could be used in debates over term limits, age caps, or partisan attacks on opponents' health. May spark discussions on mandatory health disclosures for officials, but risks perceptions of targeting vulnerable members without medical privacy safeguards (e.g., under HIPAA-like principles for public figures). Implementation could face resistance from members wary of precedent-setting.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3]

Recent Actions

• 2026-03-04: Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
• 2026-03-04: Submitted in House
• 2026-03-04: Submitted in House

Bill Versions

• Directing the Office of Congressional Conduct to establish standards of conduct related to mental capacity of members of the House of Representatives. — issued 2026-03-04 — PDF (3 pages)