Dems plan January vote on outside ethics office

Democrats on the last day of the 2007 session of Congress released the final report of a task force devoted to creating an independent ethics office to police lawmakers, but stopped short of holding a vote on it.

Only the task force’s four Democrats endorsed the long-overdue report, while the panel’s four Republicans withheld formal opinion, indicating that they may decide later to dissent with or support the plan or ask for additional adjustments. The report was originally due May 1.

Republicans have privately blasted provisions in the proposal, as The Hill reported last week, and circulated 10 written arguments against it, claiming that aspects of the new Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) would subject members to political witch hunts and create a “star chamber” in the House.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), who chaired the task force and was eager to wrap up its work by the end of the year, said he realized the sensitive nature of handing an outside entity the power to probe lawmakers and acknowledged that not everyone will be happy with the OCE’s creation.

“Each member of the House has an opinion as to whether our ethics process should contain an element independent of the membership of this House,” he wrote in a “Dear Colleague” letter accompanying a copy of the report. “Personally, I believe that the proposal we submit offers the best aspects of the concept — transparency and an end to the ‘old boy network.’ ”
Capuano, who has worked feverishly on this issue for most of the year, said he’s glad to have a proposal finalized before the holidays.

“A weight is off my back,” he said. “I may have a miserable January, but I’ll be rested by then.”
Capuano welcomed all questions, suggestions and commentary on the proposal and his report, including amendments.

“Although we spent many months considering this matter, we all realize how important, delicate, and intricate such proposals are to each of our colleagues and none of us suffers from ‘pride of authorship,’ ” according to the “Dear Colleague.”

He also indicated he was pleasantly surprised that Republicans did not openly oppose the proposal in its final form, as he had expected.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who appointed members of the task force in February, said she planned to hold a vote on a resolution changing House rules to incorporate the OCE in January.

“It’s something I want,” she said.

Pelosi also noted the lack of public GOP criticism.

Republicans on the task force, led by Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas), declined to comment on a draft proposal, saying they would review it during the upcoming recess and comment publicly after discussing its provisions with rank-and-file GOP members.

Said Smith, “I remain hopeful that we can reach a bipartisan consensus on improvements to the congressional ethics process that protects the integrity of the House, increases public confidence in congressional ethics enforcement and passes constitutional muster.”

The Democratic proposal provides for an independent office within the House that will conduct preliminary investigations into charges against members and make recommendations to the formal ethics committee about its findings, advising the committee to launch a second phase of the probe when necessary.

Several ethics watchdogs expressed deep disappointment in the plan Wednesday, because outside individuals and groups will not be allowed to file complaints against members and the panel lacks subpoena powers, a requirement the groups argued was necessary for a thorough investigative process. Those organizations include Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters and Public Citizen.

“We recognize and appreciate the fact that the proposed new Office would provide, for the first time, a role for individuals outside of Congress in the process for enforcing the congressional ethics rules,” they wrote. “Without investigatory powers to carry out its responsibilities, however, we are seriously concerned about the ability of the Office to effectively do its job.”

The OCE will be composed of six board members. Current House members and lobbyists will be ineligible to serve. Both the Speaker and the leader of the minority party would have to sign off to remove board members, who would serve four-year terms. Partisan appointments of board members could be made if the Speaker and the minority leader couldn’t agree on each other’s choices, a provision that prompted some of the GOP criticism.

But Capuano emphasized that the proposal had attracted the support of two reform-minded groups, Common Cause and U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), as well as such congressional institutionalists as the American Enterprise Institute’s Norm Ornstein and the Brookings Institution’s Thomas Mann.

U.S. PIRG fought for a late change in a provision allowing the ethics committee to halt OCE investigations at any point for any reason. In the final proposal, the committee could only take over an OCE investigation if the committee is already moving ahead with its own investigation and announces publicly that the matter is under investigation.

If the committee fails to act within 90 days, the complaint automatically returns to OCE for a second review. If the committee dismisses the complaint, nothing prevents the OCE from taking it up again, although the committee could not take over an OCE probe twice.

Another change prevents OCE board members from being removed for any reason other than a justifiable cause, such as breaking ethics rules themselves.

“These two changes from the earlier draft provide for increased independence of the board members,” U.S. PIRG’s Gary Kalman wrote in an e-mail. “While this is not the perfect proposal, U.S. PIRG believes the latest draft is a meaningful step forward.”

Mike Soraghan contributed to this report.