This report summarizes the potential consequences, with respect to congressional status, that may result when a sitting Member of the House of Representatives is indicted for or is convicted of a felony. If a sitting Member of Congress is indicted for a criminal offense that constitutes a felony, the status and service of that Member is not directly affected by any federal statute or Rule of the House of Representatives. No rights or privileges are forfeited under the Constitution, statutory law, or the Rules of the House merely upon an indictment for an offense, prior to an establishment of guilt under our judicial system. Internal party rules in the House, however, now require an indicted chairman or ranking Member of a House committee, or a member of the House party leadership, to temporarily step aside from his or her leadership or chairmanship position, although the Member's service in Congress would otherwise continue. Once a Member of the House is convicted of a crime that is a felony, certain potential consequences exist relevant to his or her status as a Member of the House. It should be noted that Members of Congress do not automatically forfeit their offices upon conviction of a crime that constitutes a felony. There is no express constitutional disability or "disqualification" from Congress for the conviction of a crime, other than under the Fourteenth Amendment for certain treasonous conduct. Members of the House are, however, instructed by House Rule not to vote in committee or on the House floor once they have been convicted of a crime for which the punishment may be two or more years' imprisonment. Furthermore, under party rules, Members may lose their chairmanships of committees or ranking member status upon conviction of a felony. Conviction of certain crimes may subjectâand has subjected in the pastâMembers of the House to internal legislative disciplinary proceedings, including resolutions of reprimand or censure, as well as expulsion from the House upon approval of two-thirds of the Members. Expulsion of a Member from Congress does not result in the forfeiture or loss of the (former) Member's federal pension, but the Member's conviction of certain crimes may lead to such forfeiture of retirement annuities, or the loss of all of the "creditable service" as a Member that one would have earned towards a federal pension. Indictment and/or conviction of a crime that is a felony does not constitutionally disqualify one from being a Member of Congress (nor from being a candidate for a future Congress), unless a Member's conviction is for certain treasonous conduct committed after taking an oath of office to support the Constitution. There are only three qualifications for congressional office, which are set out in the United States Constitution at Article I, Section 2, clause 2, for Representatives (and Article I, Section 3, clause 3 for Senators): age, citizenship, and inhabitancy in the state when elected. These constitutional qualifications are the exclusive qualifications for being a Member of Congress, and they may not be altered or added to by Congress or by any state unilaterally. Once a person meets those constitutional qualifications, that person, if elected, is constitutionally "qualified" to serve in Congress, even if under indictment or a convicted felon. Although no specific or formal Rule of the House of Representatives exists concerning the status of a Member who has been indicted, the political parties in the House have both adopted internal conference and caucus rules that provide for the temporary loss of one's position as the chairman or ranking member of a committee, and the temporary loss of one's leadership position if the Member has been indicted for a felony having a possible sentence of two or more years imprisonment. The Republican Conference Rules regarding an indicted member of the Republican leadership in the House were adopted on January 3, 2005, and provide, at Rule 26, that "a Member of the leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed." The Republican Conference Rules have also provided since 1993 that the "Chairman of a standing, select, joint or ad hoc committee of the Congress, or any subcommittee thereof, who is indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed, shall step aside.... " The Rules of the Democratic Caucus have had a similar provision since May of 1980 with regard to committee positions whereby a Democratic Member who is indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed would "cease to exercise the powers of chairman or ranking minority member and shall step aside.... " In 2005, the Democratic Caucus adopted a provision requiring a member of the Democratic leadership of the House to step aside temporarily when they have been indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed. The rules of both the Democratic and Republican parties in the House provide that a Member who has been convicted of a felony for which a sentence of two years or more may be imposed (or who has been censured by the House) loses his or her committee chairmanship, and the House Democratic Caucus Rules provide for the removal from a leadership position of any such Member. Although the office of a Member of Congress is not automatically forfeited upon conviction of a felony, a sitting Member of the House of Representatives convicted of an offense that may result in two or more years imprisonment should, under House Rules XXIII (10), "refrain from participation in the business of each committee of which he is a member, and a Member should refrain from voting" on any question on the floor of the House until his or her presumption of innocence is restored, or until the individual is reelected to Congress. The rule is phrased in advisory, not mandatory, language because the House has raised issues concerning its authority to mandatorily suspend a Member from voting by a process less than an expulsion. Members of the House, however, are explicitly instructed to follow both "the spirit and the letter" of the House Rules, and Members are expected to abide by the abstention rule. This instruction was emphasized in a 2002 letter from the House Ethics Committee, then called the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to a Member of the House who had been convicted of multiple felony offenses and was awaiting sentencing. The Committee stressed to that Member "in the strongest possible terms that if you violate the clear principles of this provisionâthat is, for example, by voting in the Houseâyou risk subjecting yourself to action by this Committee, and by the House, in addition to any other disciplinary action that may be initiated in connection with your criminal conviction." No comparable provision in House Rules exists regarding a Member who is merely under indictment for an offense. Each House of Congress has the express authority, under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the United States Constitution, to punish a Member for "disorderly Behaviour" and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, to expel a Member. Although the breadth of authority and discretion within each House as to the timing, nature, and underlying conduct involved in an internal discipline of a Member is extensive, the traditional practice in Congress, in cases where a Member of Congress has been indicted, has been to wait to impose congressional discipline, such as expulsion or censure, against the Member until the question of guilt has been at least initially resolved through the judicial system. Members of Congress, it should be noted, like many other individuals, have been indicted and charged with various offenses and then been subsequently exonerated in judicial proceedings. The House has thus been reluctant to remove from Congress individuals who have been lawfully elected as representatives by their constituents, based merely upon charges in an indictment. However, no impediment in law or rule exists for ongoing congressional inquiries concurrent with criminal proceedings (although such actions may complicate some evidentiary issues in subsequent judicial proceedings, and certain internal, concurrent congressional inquiries have in the past been postponed or partially deferred "at the request" of the Department of Justice ). In a change mandated by the House, the House Ethics Committee is required generally to initiate an inquiry by an investigative subcommittee of that committee whenever a Member of the House has been indicted or otherwise charged with criminal conduct in any state or federal court. The committee is to either empanel the investigative subcommittee within 30 days of the indictment (or other filing of charges), or to report to the House the reasons for not empaneling such an investigative subcommittee, such as, as noted by the sponsor of the provision, if the committee members "do not feel that going forward is appropriate." The committee rule states, (2) Not later than 30 days after a Member of the House is indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct in any Federal, State or local court, the Committee shall either initiate an inquiry upon a majority vote of the members of the Committee or submit a report to the House describing its reasons for not initiating an inquiry and describing the actions, if any, that the Committee has taken in response to the allegations. An attempt to mandatorily suspend an indicted Member from voting or participating in congressional proceedings, however, raises several issues. In general, elected Representatives and Senators are not in the same situation as persons appointed to positions in the government with indefinite tenure, nor as private professionals, who might be suspended for a period of time merely upon suspicion or charges being levied, because Members of Congress are directly elected by, answerable to, and personally represent the people of their district or state in the Congress. The authority of either House to mandatorily suspend a Member from participation in congressional business has thus been questioned on grounds of both policy and power because such action would, in effect, disenfranchise that Member's entire constituency, deprive the people of their full constitutional representation in Congress, and would not allow the constituents to replace a Member, such as they could in an expulsion action. In the past, some Members have voluntarily refrained from participating in congressional matters while under indictment, but this does not appear to be a common practice in more recent times in the past century.