House GOP to Discuss Ethics Rule Changes

In the aftermath of ethics rebukes of their popular but controversial majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas, House Republicans today are expected to consider rule changes that would make it harder to bring ethics complaints against lawmakers.

One proposal would require that a majority of House ethics committee members approve any investigation of a House member. Currently, an inquiry can move ahead even if the ethics committee, which has five Republicans and five Democrats, is deadlocked.

Another proposal, its critics argue, would make it more difficult to enforce ethics rules unless the improper conduct is clearly spelled out in the rules.

The proposed rule changes are among the first orders of business of the new, more Republican Congress, which convenes Tuesday.

Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman for Common Cause, one of several government watchdog groups that have come out against the proposals, said the rule changes would send a message that “there is going to be no accountability in the House, or very little accountability, for unethical behavior.”

The proposals will come before House Republicans in a closed-door session today and then go to the full House on Tuesday. Democrats have criticized the proposed changes, but Republicans, as the majority, are expected to prevail.

The effort to change the rules comes amid reports that House leaders also are considering replacing Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) as chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics committee is formally known. Under Hefley’s leadership, the committee rebuked DeLay twice last fall for his hardball political tactics.

DeLay was admonished for allegedly involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan matter and staging a fundraising event in a way that appeared to link access to the congressman with political donations. He also was criticized for saying he would support the campaign of a retiring congressman’s son to succeed his father if the congressman voted for legislation adding a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.

The rebukes angered many of DeLay’s fellow Republicans, who credit the House’s No. 2 leader for helping the GOP expand its majority in the House and position itself to pass more of President Bush’s legislative agenda. The Republicans picked up three seats in November and will now hold 232 of the chamber’s 435 seats.

In November, House Republicans changed a party rule to allow DeLay to hold onto his leadership post even if indicted. Two months earlier, a Texas grand jury indicted three fundraisers with ties to DeLay for allegedly funneling illegal corporate contributions to GOP candidates for state office. DeLay’s allies contend that the Texas inquiry is politically motivated and designed to weaken one of Congress’ most powerful members.

Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas), chairman of the House Rules Committee, said in a letter to House Republicans that one of the proposed rule changes would restore a lawmaker’s “presumption of innocence.”

That proposal calls for no action to be taken on a complaint unless the chairman and the ranking member, or the committee itself, finds within 45 days that further investigation is merited. Currently, if the chairman and the ranking member take no action on a complaint within 45 days, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee.

“It would allow complaints to die from inaction unless a majority of the ethics committee agrees an investigation is needed,” the Common Cause’s Boyle said.

Dreier also expressed concern in the letter to colleagues about how lawmakers “may have complied with all applicable laws, regulations and rules, but nonetheless be found in violation of the Code of Conduct.”

The Code of Conduct is a catch-all rule that calls for House members to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”

But some lawmakers are concerned that the wording of the Code of Conduct is too broad. Some lawmakers thought it was unfair for the ethics committee to admonish DeLay last year for playing host to energy lobbyists at a golf fundraising event as the House was considering energy legislation.

An opponent of the rules changes, Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-North Hollywood), a former ethics committee member, said Sunday that members of Congress should be held to the same standard as U.S. soldiers, who must adhere to a standard of discipline in which they are held accountable for “conduct unbecoming a member of the armed forces.”

A coalition of government watchdog groups, including Common Cause, is scheduled to hold a news conference today to speak out against the proposals and call for toughening the rules -- including restoring one, rescinded in 1997, that would allow outsider groups or citizens to file ethics complaints against lawmakers. According to its proponents, that rule was amended to limit politically inspired complaints, though Common Cause at the time called it “blatant incumbent protection.”

Gary Ruskin, who runs the Congressional Accountability Project, a Washington-based organization that examines ethical issues, says that the moves to change the ethics rules, including the House GOP’s recent decision to allow DeLay to retain his leadership post even if indicted, are evidence that “the battle against corruption in Congress has collapsed.”

“We’re still waiting for a member of Congress in either party,” he said, “to stand tall in a sea of midgets and say: Enough is enough.”

A House Republican staff member who spoke on the condition that he not be named said that the sentiments for “adjustments point to serious flaws in the rules as they exist. This may not be music to the ears of Democrats, demagogues and editorial boards, but serious observers recognize that dangerous precedents were set last year.”

“And while they will all moan and groan over this because they want to score points, the cagiest Democrats will silently be glad these changes are made,” the staff member said. “None of the above will admit it, but their leaders are at least as vulnerable.”