Senators Set to Begin Push for Ethics Office

Two key senators begin their bipartisan push today for creating an office of public integrity, a proposal that would significantly alter the way Congress investigates itself.

Under the measure sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the panel’s ranking Democrat, the new office could initiate probes of House and Senate members suspected of ethics violations.

Whether the provision has the votes to pass the Senate is unclear, as are its prospects in the House. Traditionally, the chambers jealously guard their prerogatives and follow their own rules for ethics and dealings with lobbyists.

But both are under pressure to toughen these guidelines, especially since lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to attempting to bribe members of Congress. And Collins’ support for a new process to investigate ethics’ complaints improves the chances that change will occur, given that Senate Republican leaders chose her to spearhead reform efforts.

Under the current system, each chamber’s ethics committee is responsible for such investigations, which the panels can launch on their own or in response to complaints by lawmakers. The Senate ethics committee also accepts complaints lodged by outside parties.

Government watchdog groups, as well as some lawmakers, complain that the system falls short because most members of Congress are loath to investigate one of their own.

They say partisan disputes sometimes paralyze the committees, noting that the House’s ethics panel has not examined a single case for more than a year, despite rising concerns about the influence of lobbyists sparked by various scandals.

The Collins-Lieberman proposal seeks to overcome these problems by establishing an independent, professional staff that would investigate lawmakers, acting either on its own or at the request of others. If the office of public integrity found that allegations had merit, it would turn over its findings to the House or Senate ethics committee for action.

Collins said in a statement: “There is a real tension between the notion that Congress is responsible for setting and enforcing its own rules and the practical reality of trying to do so.”

The public integrity office, she said, “would help to promote public confidence in the enforcement process.”

The bill containing the proposal is expected to win approval from Collins’ committee today. The measure, which will include other reform matters, could come to the Senate floor as early as next week.

The bill calls for the director of the new office to be appointed with the consent of the Speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader and the minority leaders of both chambers. The office would oversee financial disclosure and other reports filed by lawmakers and the aides, as well as disclosure reports filed by lobbyists. Its budget would be supplied by Congress.

The office would have the power to issue subpoenas and to take testimony under oath from witnesses in ethics cases. It could hold those who refused to cooperate with its investigations in contempt of Congress.

The proposal is not as far-reaching as a bill recently introduced by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) that called for creating an ethics commission that would operate more independently of Congress. And some watchdog groups are sure to point out that if the office envisioned by Collins and Lieberman became too aggressive for lawmakers, Congress’ control of its budget could stymie what it investigates.

Still, Larry Noble, head of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, said the proposal showed that Collins and Lieberman recognized that more effective enforcement of ethics rules was “a critical component to any reform.”

Leslie Phillips, Lieberman’s news secretary, described the plan as “an effort to do something extraordinary, given ... the low esteem that the public has for members of Congress.”

Along with the Abramoff scandal, other cases have helped tarnish Capitol Hill’s image.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was forced to relinquish his leadership post last fall after a grand jury in his home state indicted him on charges of laundering campaign contributions. DeLay has said he is innocent, but he has been thwarted in his bid for a speedy trial on the allegations.

Also last fall, former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe) resigned his seat after pleading guilty to charges of soliciting and accepting bribes from defense contractors in return for steering tens of millions of dollars of federal defense contracts their way. He is to be sentenced later this year.

The publicity surrounding the Abramoff case initially seemed likely to lead to a ban on House members taking trips financed by interest groups and policy organizations. But House GOP leaders may push for only a moratorium on such travel through the end of this year while they study suggestions for tougher reporting requirements for the trips.

The Senate also is leaning toward adopting more detailed reporting rules for privately funded travel, rather than a prohibition of it.