The House last night approved one of the most significant changes to
its ethics rules in decades, creating for the first time an independent
panel empowered to initiate investigations of alleged misconduct by
members of the chamber.
The
six members of the new Office of Congressional Ethics would have the
authority to initiate preliminary reviews of allegations against House
members, conduct investigations and refer their findings to the House ethics committee along with a public report.
"For the first time in history, you have nonmembers able to initiate
investigations," said Sarah Dufendach, chief lobbyist for the watchdog
group Common Cause. "They're doing oversight. They're the new police."
The final vote, 229 to 182, belied the measure's controversy in the
House; 159 Republicans and 23 Democrats opposed it. Even with two House
members under indictment, two others sent to prison, and several others
under federal investigation, nearly half the House did not want to
submit the body to the scrutiny of a panel not under its control.
"If you have a single ounce of self-preservation, you'll vote no," implored Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) last night.
A
parliamentary maneuver before the final vote was defeated by a single
vote, and only after Democratic leaders held the vote open an extra 16
minutes to twist enough arms to secure passage.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) leaned hard on his fellow Congressional Black Caucus members, persuading Reps. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), Sanford B. Bishop Jr. (D-Ga.) and Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) -- to switch their votes.
Republicans
angrily accused Democrats of defying their new ethics rules, which
prohibit the holding open of votes for the purpose only of changing the
outcome.
House Democratic leaders faced severe difficulty even
in bringing the measure to a vote -- from Republicans and fellow
Democrats.
Until the moment of last night's vote, the panel's
proposal absorbed bipartisan attacks from members who were concerned
that an outside panel would reopen the ethics wars that plagued the
House in the 1990s. Similar proposals have been shot down twice in the
Senate, by overwhelming bipartisan votes.
"Ladies and gentleman, we have a new grand jury in the House," thundered Rep. Neil Abercrombie
(D-Hawaii). "Any referral to the Office of Congressional Ethics will be
tantamount to a guilty verdict. Any other conclusion by the ethics
committee will be seen as a cover-up. I guarantee it."
Senate ethics committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the panel's ranking Republican, Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) released a statement last night making clear that they have no intention of following the House's lead.
"The Senate voted overwhelmingly to reject proposals to create an
outside investigative body because we have confidence in our Ethics
process," Boxer and Cornyn said.
The House's Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct has been all but moribund since an ethics
war drove then-Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) from power in 1989, then
nearly toppled then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) eight years later.
In 2006, the committee investigated allegations that House Republican leaders had for years failed to respond to clues that then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) had inappropriate contact with House pages. But beyond a damning report, the panel did not hold anyone accountable.
Former representatives Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) and Robert W.
Ney (R-Ohio), went to prison. The former majority leader, Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), was chased from the House under indictment. Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted. The FBI raided the home and business of Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) -- but the public has seen little action in the ethics committee.
The ethic panel did announce it would investigate a land deal that has led to charges against Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), but only after the Justice Department indicted the lawmaker.
The new panel will work something like a grand jury, investigating
allegations and forwarding only matters of merit to the ethics
committee. Its architects envision the appointment of retired judges
and lawyers with a strong background in jurisprudence and a stature
that would remove partisanship from the panel's work.
Three members will be named by the House speaker, and the other three would be selected by the minority leader.
But
the panel will be weaker than some watchdog groups had hoped. An ethics
review can be started only if a Democratic appointee and a Republican
appointee agree to do so.
The new ethics office will have a staff but lacks subpoena power.
After
30 days or five legislative days, whichever is longer, three panel
members would have to approve a deeper investigation. That
investigation would have to be concluded in 45 days or five legislative
days, whichever is longer, before the matter is sent to the ethics
committee, along with a finding of fact and a recommendation of
dismissal or further inquiry.
Rep. Christopher Shays
(R-Conn.), who fought for tougher ethics rules when Republicans
controlled Congress, said the new panel may actually weaken ethics
enforcement, if the ethics committee cedes its investigative duties to
a body without subpoena powers. Even Capuano said the panel could be as
susceptible to gridlock as the ethics committee has been, if appointees
fall prey to partisanship and refuse to investigate lawmakers from
their party.
"I won't know if this works for a year, and it might not," he said.
But on balance, watchdog groups hailed the vote as a landmark.
"The
bottom line is, it is a major improvement in the system," said Fred
Wertheimer, president of the watchdog group Democracy 21. "It addresses
the single biggest problem with the ethics committee: Things go to the
committee and disappear into a black hole."