Watchdog Groups Criticize G.O.P. Plan on Ethics Complaints
By CARL HULSE, NY TIMES, December 31, 2004

LINK

WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 - Emerging Republican proposals to change the way House ethics complaints are handled present a serious threat to the House's ability to police itself, leaders of independent groups that monitor Congressional ethics say.

After a summary of the Republican plans became public on Thursday, officials of the organizations said the changes appeared to represent a step backward and could cripple the ethics panel in efforts to hold lawmakers accountable for suspect conduct.

"We think this sends a message that there are no consequences for unethical behavior," said Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman for Common Cause, part of a coalition fighting the proposals.

The changes, drafted partly in response to Republican dissatisfaction with the way ethics complaints against the House majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas, were resolved earlier this year, are scheduled to be reviewed by Republican House members in a closed meeting on Monday. If the lawmakers approve, the proposals could be presented to the full House for a vote when the new Congress convenes on Tuesday.

An aide to Representative David Dreier, the California Republican who is chairman of the Rules Committee, said that the proposals were submitted by Republican lawmakers and that Mr. Dreier deemed them worthy of study by House Republicans. The aide referred questions to Representatives Lamar Smith of Texas and Dave Camp of Michigan, the authors, but neither could be reached for comment.

Fred Wertheimer, president of the group Democracy 21, said one proposal appeared to make it much more difficult to enforce ethical behavior under the broad standard that "a member, officer or employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives." The proposal would make compliance with "applicable laws, regulations and rules" sufficient to satisfy House rules.

Mr. Wertheimer said the broader language had provided the basis for many ethics cases because behavior could often fall outside what was specified in rules.

"This is a huge undermining of the ethics rules," he said.

Mr. DeLay was admonished in October for tactics in trying to persuade a colleague to support the Medicare drug bill, for appearing to link political donations to support for legislation and for involving a federal agency in a political matter in Texas. Mr. DeLay and his allies said repeatedly that he was never cited for direct violations of House rules.

Another proposal would prevent action by the committee on a complaint unless the chairman and senior member of the minority party, or the committee itself, agreed that an investigation was warranted. Under the current system, if the panel does not act within 45 days, an investigation is automatically begun.

Critics of the plan said the proposal could thwart many ethics inquiries because the panel, which is evenly divided between the parties, can deadlock. In their summary of the rule change, the authors said it would preserve a lawmaker's "presumption of innocence."

But Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, called the proposed change "egregious," saying, "It continues a do-nothing ethics process."

A third change would require that House members who are the subject of committee action be given a chance to challenge the finding or write a response for inclusion with the ethics report.

The Republican leadership is also considering replacing Representative Joel Hefley of Colorado as chairman of the panel.

Democratic officials said they had not been given any details of the proposal, but they expressed concern.

"If true, this would be the most significant change made to the code of official conduct since 1968 and it would be completely partisan," said Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader.

Other proposals to be considered include one that would allow more relatives to accompany lawmakers or staff members on business and educational travel paid for by outside groups. The rules now allow only spouses or children. Lawmakers would also be asked to prohibit government-paid mass mailings to constituents for 90 days before an election, rather than the current 60 days.

Statement of the Congressional Ethics Coalition

LINK

The Congressional Ethics Coalition - a nonpartisan, ideologically diverse group of eight government watchdog groups - today released the following statement about potential congressional rules changes that would cripple the already weak ethics oversight process in the House of Representatives, and about possible retribution against sitting members of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

The coalition includes the Campaign Legal Center, the Center for Responsive Politics, Common Cause, Citizens for Responsibility for Ethics in Washington, Democracy 21, Judicial Watch, Public Campaign and Public Citizen:

The House ethics rules are designed to protect the integrity of the institution and to promote public confidence in both the Congress and its Members. To the chamber's credit, after seven years of failing to properly enforce those rules, the House Ethics Committee recently took some admirable, difficult steps when it investigated and ultimately admonished House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for three separate instances of ethical misconduct.

Unfortunately, published reports indicate that the Committee's commendable action may prompt the House leadership to take another giant step backwards. We strongly urge Members to reject any moves to further cripple the already weakened system of ethics oversight. Only by strengthening the current rules, and by enforcing them, can Members reestablish the necessary public faith in the integrity of Congress.

Several reports have indicated that the leadership may include changes in the chamber's ethics oversight process as part of the rules package Members must adopt at the beginning of the 109th Congress. The November 15 edition of CQ Today indicated that these changes, advocated by House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, would be designed to "curtail the ethics committee." A New York Times editorial on November 19 noted that a letter Mr. Dreier sent to all House members on October 8 signaled his intention "to make it even harder than it already is for members to file an ethics complaint, and for outside groups to be heard in the process."

The Hill further reported on December 15 that the changes under consideration could "render ethics complaints less damaging by making it easier for the committee to dismiss them and reducing the influence of outside groups that want to have lawmakers sanctioned."

Further, on November 18, the Ethics Committee sent a letter to Rep. Chris Bell, the Member who filed a complaint against Rep. DeLay, which will almost certainly have a chilling effect on future complaints by Members. The statement criticized the complaint Rep. Bell filed for containing "excessive or inflammatory language or exaggerated charges in press releases and other public statements." A statement to all Members released the same day indicated that "objectionable material" in a complaint could also be the basis for "initiation of disciplinary action against a Member who makes the filing." However it may have been intended, the letter and statement read as a threat against Members who wish to bring legitimate matters to the attention of the Committee.

Reports have also stated that the leadership may retaliate against members of the Ethics Committee, including Chairman Joel Hefley, for admonishing Mr. DeLay. Although the Committee - comprised of five Democrats and five Republicans - acted unanimously in each of those instances, a November 4 article in Roll Call states that the admonishments angered House Republicans, and that as a result, "the feeling within Republican leadership circles is that [House Speaker Dennis] Hastert will go with another choice in the next Congress.... 'It's fair to say that [Hefley] won't return as chairman of ethics,' said a top House GOP aide."

The Hill also noted on December 15 that Speaker Hastert may replace Mr. Hefley because "his handling of the complaint against DeLay infuriated many House Republicans," also noting that Mr. Hefley says he was threatened by colleagues in response to the Committee's actions.

These threats are particularly distressing because they come at a moment when the Ethics Committee has finally begun taking some steps to enforce the ethics rules. Despite the considerable difficulty of sitting in judgment on a powerful colleague, the members of the Ethics Committee this year started the process of showing that Members can be held accountable for ethical improprieties. It is time to continue along that road and strengthen the rules, not further cripple them.

Toward that end, we urge the Members of the House to take the following steps when they meet in the 109th Congress.

First, the House should reject any attempt to undermine or weaken the ethics oversight and enforcement process or to discourage Members from filing valid ethics complaints.

Under current rules, only Members may file complaints against fellow Members. It is therefore essential that they remain free to do so without additional hindrances, burdens or threats of reprisal. While the concern that frivolous, politically damaging complaints might be filed is understandable, the Committee is already empowered to deal with such circumstances. The existing rules - when used judiciously and appropriately - gives the Committee the authority it needs to dispense with inappropriate complaints.

Further, any changes to the House ethics rules, including the procedure for the filing and handling of complaints, should take place in the open, after public hearings, with adequate opportunity for review and debate.

Second, members of the leadership must not retaliate against Members of the Ethics Committee when the panel determines that a colleague has breached the ethics rules.

Retaliation against Ethics Committee members for responsibly doing their job can only discourage Committee members from fulfilling their responsibilities. And retaliation - particularly when, as occurred this year, the panel's Republicans and Democrats act unanimously - can only further diminish public confidence in the House by painting it as hopelessly politicized and self-protective.

Third, and finally, outside groups should be allowed to file ethics complaints.

In 1997, the House voted to change its own rules to forbid any outside group or citizen from filing a complaint to request an investigation of an alleged ethics violation by a Member. This put the House on a distinctly different footing from the Senate, which allows outside complaints. As a result, neither ordinary citizens nor watchdog organizations are able to directly trigger investigations. Only Members may file complaints against other Members or, alternatively, forward a complaint submitted by an outside person or group.

As the furor over Rep. Bell's complaint makes clear, such action by Members will almost certainly continue to be the rare exception, not the rule. Members are understandably reluctant to sit in judgment on their colleagues - and will only become more so if the leadership is allowed to make the practice more difficult and potentially retributive.

It is therefore essential that the House change its rules to once again allow outside organizations to bring complaints. We note again that the Ethics Committee already has the power to deal with frivolous complaints, whether by outside groups or Members.

There are other measures the House should ultimately consider, including a mechanism for determining when the Committee should turn to an outside counsel for assistance, and the possibility of an independent office made up of non-Members that could objectively advise the Committee on ethics matters.

The three points we highlight above, however, are essential if the House is to continue moving towards a functioning system of ethics oversight worthy of the public's trust.

Campaign Legal Center
Center for Responsive Politics
Common Cause
Citizens for Responsibility for Ethics in Washington
Democracy 21
Judicial Watch
Public Campaign
Public Citizen

Ethics in Government

Common Cause is a watchdog on ethics in the U.S. Congress and in state governments. We have lobbied for stronger conflict of interest rules and highlighted the ethical misdeeds of politicians, pushing for investigations when there have been serious allegations of wrongdoing.

Common Cause was the leader in passing the landmark Ethics in Government Acts of 1978 and 1989, which brought new financial disclosure laws to Congress and the Executive Branch, limits on gifts and other reforms. We successfully lobbied for passage of House and Senate rules that limited gifts to Members of the House and Senate in 1995. We continue to work to make certain those laws and rules are strictly enforced and to improve those reforms.

Common Cause has also been a leader in ethics reforms at the state and local level, from the "cup of coffee" gift ban in Wsiconsin to groundbreaking financial disclosure rules in Washington State.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 19, 2004
Contact:
Melanie Sloan, 202.588-5565
Valerie Holford, 301-926-1298

LINK

CREW Condemns Ethics Committee for Shutting Down Ethics Process

Washington, D.C. - Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") condemned the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for trying to further cut back on ethics complaints. Last night, the Ethics Committee sent a letter to Rep. Chris Bell (D-TX) explaining that committee rules prohibit complaints from including "innuendo, speculative assertions, or conclusory statements." The Ethics Committee publicly released the letter to inform members that, in the future, the Committee would not accept complaints that include such statements, and that the Committee may even sanction members who submit complaints that include such statements.

Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director and a former federal prosecutor expressed dismay at the Committee's statement. "It will be nearly impossible for anyone to file a complaint that meets the Committee's new standard," said Sloan. "This provision effectively prohibits anyone from filing a complaint based on a reasonable belief that an ethics violation occurred. Apparently, the Committee will only review complaints that demonstrate a violation a 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' thus eliminating the need for the Committee to conduct any independent investigations."

Sloan explained that in their individual capacities, Members of Congress do not have subpoena power and, therefore, cannot compel witnesses to testify and cannot compel the production of documents. That power is reserved for the Ethics Committee. Without the evidence that can be discovered only through the use of subpoena power, it is unlikely that a Member can put together a complaint that includes no "innuendo, speculative assertions or conclusory statements."

Sloan stated, "it appears that the House wasn't satisfied with merely preventing non-members from filing complaints. Now, the House has decided to prevent Members from filing complaints as well." Sloan continued, "viewed in conjunction with the Republican conference's decision to allow indicted Members to maintain leadership posts" it is abundantly clear that in the House of Representatives, ethics are dead. The only thing left to do is disband the Ethics Committee altogether and drop the pretense that the House takes ethics seriously."

Ethics and Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX)

As a member of a ideologically diverse group of eight nonprofit organizations, Common Cause played a key role in breaking a seven-year "ethics moratorium" in the House of Representatives, during which both parties agreed to refrain from filing ethics complaints against each (only Members of the House may file ethics complaints – citizens are not permitted to file a complaint on their own).

On June 15, 2004Rep. Chris Bell (D-TX) filed an ethics complaint against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) alleging improper use of political funds in DeLay's relationship with a Kansasenergy company and his Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee. Bellalso alleged DeLay inappropriately used the Federal Aviation Administration in searching for Texasstate legislators needed to pass a 2003 redistricting plan.

On July 15, Common Cause and another coalition member, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), called for the House Ethics Committee to appoint an outside counsel to investigate Bell's complaint. The House Ethics Committee is still investigating the complaint.

Bell's ethics complaint was filed three weeks after DeLay said on May 19 he would stop using a charity, Celebrations for Children, to raise money for political activities at the Republican National Convention in New York. Since December 2003, Common Cause has asked the House Ethics Committee three times to rule on the legality of DeLay's plan, asked members of Congress to make the same request of the Ethics Committee and requested the Internal Revenue Servicedeny tax-exempt status for the charity. Common Cause also found the charity was run by several DeLay political operatives and a current DeLay employee. The information came through a Freedom of Information Law request on the charity filed with the New York State attorney general's office.

Related Articles:

Coalition of National Watchdog Organizations Call for an Overhaul of the House 'Moribund' Ethics Oversight Process

Representative Tom DeLay (R-Texas) Seems to be Sinking in Unethical Mud