http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/politics/18ethics.html?oref=login
April 18, 2005
With Changes to House Ethics Rules, Standoff May Emerge
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, April 17 - When Representative Tom DeLay appeared last year before an ethics panel investigating bribery accusations surrounding a Medicare vote, lawmakers conducting the confidential inquiry let him know they had collected substantial sworn testimony about what took place.
What they did not tell Mr. DeLay, the majority leader, was exactly what they knew, giving them added leverage as they questioned him.
Mr. DeLay, speaking under oath, then gave a candid account of how he offered to endorse, in a primary election, the son of a Republican congressman in exchange for the congressman's vote on a prescription drug bill, confirming the exchange that was at the heart of one of Mr. DeLay's three ethics admonishments last year.
Now, past and present leaders of the House ethics panel say rules changes that grew out of Republican resentment over the treatment of Mr. DeLay and others are threatening to put the committee on too short a leash. The escalating partisan clash over the legalistic details of the ethics process has paralyzed the panel at a moment of intense scrutiny of Mr. DeLay's conduct and has highlighted anew the historical difficulty of politicians judging other politicians.
"We cannot organize a bipartisan House ethics committee with a partisan process," said Representative Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the panel, officially known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Incensed over rules changes that originated in the office of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert without the consultation of House Democrats, committee members or staff, Mr. Mollohan is refusing to allow the panel - the only House committee split evenly between Democrats and Republicans - to organize while he pushes to reverse the changes.
Republicans, including Mr. DeLay, say the revisions are intended to better protect the rights of lawmakers and to give those who find themselves accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence and protection from politically motivated attacks. "What some partisans had found, that if there was no agreement and charges brought against a member, the member would be hung out to dry," Mr. DeLay said Thursday on the House floor.
Other Republicans say Democrats want the ethics committee to founder. "The Democrats want to keep the ethics committee shut down so they can keep lobbing charge after charge at our members without the ethics committee coming to any conclusion," said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for Mr. Hastert.
At the center of the rules fight are three basic changes: one to allow the dismissal of a complaint if a majority of the panel cannot agree on how to proceed after 45 days, another to allow lawyers to represent multiple participants in any inquiry and a third to allow lawmakers a chance to respond if they are to be named in committee reports.
Republican officials say they did not believe the scale of the changes merited a review by a two-party task force like those that produced ethics reforms in the 1980's and 1990's.
But Democrats and a few Republicans say the way the revisions were drafted and forced through the House in January was an affront to the bipartisan nature of the panel.
Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, was critical of the process, saying Sunday on "Meet the Press" on NBC: "Hey, look, let me be very straightforward here. I, 15 years ago, had a problem because I behaved inappropriately. The ethics committee stepped in. Newt Gingrich had a problem. He was reprimanded; the ethics committee stepped in.
The difference between us and Mr. DeLay is, I think, we changed our behavior. Mr. DeLay changed the ethics committee."
The potential automatic dismissal of a complaint has drawn much of the attention, but the rule on legal representation is also troubling to veterans of the ethics committee. Mr. Mollohan said the panel had been moving toward a recommendation to prohibit lawyers from representing both a subject of inquiry and other witnesses when the leadership went in the opposite direction.
Committee veterans said one of their chief tactics in cases like the Medicare investigation was collecting information from others before confronting those central to the incident, an advantage that could disappear if one lawyer is serving both the subject and others being called to testify.
"It is so easy to coordinate witnesses and skew the case," said Representative Joel Hefley, Republican of Colorado and the former chairman who was removed from the ethics panel this year by Mr. Hastert. "What you want is a good, honest answer."
Republicans say that the right to counsel of one's choice is a basic element of the American legal system and that it is up to lawyers to know when their representation could create a conflict between clients.
The least contentious change is the one giving lawmakers the chance to respond if they are to be cited by the panel. It also arose from the Medicare inquiry after Representative Candice S. Miller, Republican of Michigan, was admonished for her role but given no notification that she was to be singled out in a public report. Both Republicans and Democrats agree with the underlying concept, though they disagree on how to achieve it.
The chief change at issue is the requirement for dismissing a complaint if the panel remains deadlocked after 45 days. Under the old system, an impasse would trigger the creation of an investigatory subcommittee.
In reality, officials on both sides say, that point was never reached in earlier inquiries, because the panel came to terms on how to proceed. But the prospect of an automatic investigation, many say, created a climate that led panel members to resolve a complaint.
Critics say the new rule eliminates the incentive for negotiating and instead gives committee members of either party the power to run out the clock. "What we have created is the ability of both sides to stop investigations in their tracks," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House. "Both sides."
Republican officials say that the previous system was unfair to lawmakers because it could lead to a prolonged review of their cases and that the mere suggestion of a lingering investigation can be poisonous to a political career. But Republican leaders are also becoming uneasy about the prospect of an extended fight over the ethics committee and are beginning to seek some accommodation with Mr. Mollohan and the Democrats.
While the impasse continues, both sides say they hope a compromise can be reached. "You need an ethics committee for the institution," Mr. Hefley said.
And that from our most moral highness Bush.
