|
The New York Times
House Weighing
Independent Ethics Panel
By CARL HULSE,
nytimes.com from the Web, February 24, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Days after
another member of Congress was charged in a broad criminal indictment, the House
is set to consider the creation of an independent ethics panel that supporters
hope will restore credibility to efforts to police Congress internally.
The plan to allow people besides member of Congress to initiate inquiries into
suspected wrongdoing by House members is a piece of unfinished business from
Democratic efforts to overhaul ethics rules. It is also one of the most
contentious, because lawmakers have traditionally resisted oversight by
outsiders.
But Democratic leaders and members of the bipartisan task force that wrote the
proposal say persistent misconduct and a low level of public regard for the
institution should provide momentum to approve what would be a potentially
significant change. Representative Rick Renzi, Republican of Arizona, on
Friday was the latest in a series of lawmakers to be indicted, and others remain
under investigation.
“I think the time has come to have an independent entity,” said Representative
Michael Capuano, Democrat of Massachusetts, who was appointed by Speaker Nancy
Pelosi to head the bipartisan task force on the creation of an independent
panel.
Under the proposal for a new Office of Congressional Ethics, six members
appointed jointly by the speaker and minority leader would have the power to
scrutinize the conduct of representatives. It could then deliver findings
to the ethics committee.
The panel is one response to a criticism that lawmakers have proved reluctant to
judge the behavior of their peers. That perception was fueled by the fact
that both parties engaged in an informal ethics truce for years after ethics
complaints ended the careers of some top lawmakers. And in some recent
high-profile cases, the ethics committee has ultimately shied away, saying it
did not want to interfere in outside criminal inquiries.
“There was a sense that nobody there was in charge, that there was no ethics
process,” said Norm Ornstein, a Congressional scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute who has been involved in drawing up the new ethics proposal.
Mr. Ornstein said he would support the plan to be considered by the House, as
did Fred Wertheimer, a longtime government watchdog. But both said they
would have preferred the new group be given subpoena power.
“We are going to support this and urge them to make a commitment that if it
doesn’t work without subpoena power, they will go back and look at that down the
road,” said Mr. Wertheimer, head of the group Democracy 21. “But this is
an improvement over the current situation.”
Mr. Capuano said he believed giving the panel the authority to compel testimony
and evidence would only delay investigations since it could throw the subpoena
fight into the courts. He and others noted that lawmakers typically
cooperated in ethics inquiries rather than be seen as stalling.
Some critics have also said the panel should be allowed to accept complaints
from individuals, but Mr. Capuano said that proposal could lead to a flood of
politically motivated inquiries. The independent panel would apply only to
the House and not the Senate, which has rejected similar ideas. Many
lawmakers in both chambers remain convinced that only those elected to Congress
should have the right to judge and punish their colleagues.
Under the House plan, formal complaints by members against colleagues would
still go straight to the ethics committee, known formally as the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
The members of the panel, who could not be lobbyists or current members of
Congress, would be appointed for four-year terms. Inquiries could be
started by two members, and the panel would have up to 30 days to conduct a
preliminary investigation. At the end of that time, the panel could vote
to end the investigation. If a second phase is agreed upon, it could take
up to 45 additional days before a required referral to the ethics committee.
The report to the panel could recommend no further action, more inquiry or
simply provide the facts of the case.
|
