|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Crime & Police : Elections & Legislation : Government Secrecy : Right Wing |
|
House Republicans Launch Smokescreen to Disguise Their Ongoing Gutting of Ethics Probes |
Current rating: 0 |
by Democracy 21
(No verified email address) |
05 Jan 2005
|
|
Statement of Democracy 21 Pres. Fred Wertheimer on Remaining Proposal by Republican Leaders to Cripple House Ethics Enforcement Process for Future |
WASHINGTON -- January 4 -- The following is a statement of Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer on key remaining proposal by Republican leaders to cripple house ethics enforcement process for the future:
Democracy 21 congratulates House Republicans for backing away from two efforts to seriously undermine the House ethics rules and procedures. It appears that, at least in these two instances, House Republicans have concluded it does not make sense to gut important ethics rules in order to provide political cover for the multiple ethical transgressions of their Majority Leader, Representative Tom DeLay.
Unfortunately, however, House Republican leaders have decided to proceed with a third proposed change that will cripple the ethics enforcement process in the House in the future.
Under the present rules, an impasse between the chair and ranking minority member of the Ethics Committee as to whether to investigate a complaint results in an initial inquiry into the matter. Under the changes proposed by Speaker Hastert and other Republican leaders, the Ethics Committee in the future would investigate a complaint only if both the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee agree to proceed or if a majority of the committee, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, agree. This, in essence, gives a complete veto power to either party over the question of even looking at a matter brought to the Ethics Committee.
This proposed rules change, when combined with the expected appointment of a compliant House Ethics Committee Chairman to replace current Chairman Joel Hefley, will, in essence, shut down the ethics enforcement process in the House for the future.
Under the new rule, for example, a compliant Ethics Committee Chairman could simply ignore a complaint brought before the Committee, and after 45 days it would simply disappear without even the barest initial inquiry being made.
The problems resulting from a compliant Ethics Committee Chair and a crippled ethics enforcement process have immediate bearing and relevance.
Because the House is not a continuing body, all matters pending at the end of a Congress expire at the conclusion of that Congress. This means that any matter pending in the Ethics Committee at the end of the last Congress must be formally placed again on the Ethics Committee agenda in the new Congress.
When the Ethics Committee last year issued its three admonishments to Representative DeLay, the Committee deferred action on another allegation against DeLay. The Committee invoked a rule that authorizes it to defer a matter that is the subject of a pending criminal investigation. The deferred allegation centered on DeLay's allegedly illegal activities on behalf of TRMPAC.
In deferring the matter, Ethics Committee Chairman Hefley and Ranking Minority Member Alan Mollohan noted that the Committee staff would "monitor" the legal proceedings in Texas and stated, "When circumstances arise indicating that the deferral should end, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member will make appropriate recommendations for action on Count II to the Committee."
This matter needs to be placed again on the Ethics Committee agenda and examined at the appropriate time. Is that going to happen with a new compliant Ethics Committee Chairman and a new procedure restricting the ability of the Committee to review ethics matters?
According to a published report in The Hill on December 15, 2004:
"Representative Bob Ney (R-Ohio), the powerful chairman of the House Administration Committee, has attracted the attention of the House ethics committee for his dealings with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, said congressional and lobbying sources with knowledge of the matter. The ethics panel has been working for the past month to glean more information on Ney's involvement with Abramoff, which was first disclosed at a Senate hearing Nov. 17."
The Ney-Abramoff matter needs to be placed again on the Ethics Committee agenda and the inquiry needs to go forward in the new Congress. Is that going to happen with a new compliant Ethics Committee Chairman and a new procedure restricting the ability of the Committee to review ethics matters?
On December 28, 2004, Democracy 21 asked the Ethics Committee to broaden its investigation of lobbyist Abramoff and Representative Ney to cover various ethics matters raised by the Abramoff affair, including whether Abramoff provided House Members and staff with impermissible financial favors in the form of luxury box tickets, wining and dining and other benefits, in violation of the House gift ban.
Is this investigation going to happen with a new compliant Ethics Committee Chairman and a new procedure restricting the ability of the Committee to review ethics matters? This is no time to be backtracking on the enforcement of House ethics rules. Important questions concerning the integrity of our elected Representatives and their actions on behalf of the American people are pending in the House.
Democracy 21 calls on all House Members to vote against the proposed change in the 45-day ethics enforcement rule which would seriously cripple the ability of the Ethics Committee to do its job in the future. We also call on House Speaker Hastert to re- appoint Representative Joel Hefley as Chairman of the House Ethics Committee. |
See also:
http://www.democracy21.org/
|
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license |
