GOP scraps ethics changeProposal to loosen rules abandoned

From the Chicago Tribune

GOP scraps ethics change
Proposal to loosen rules abandoned
By William Neikirk
Tribune senior correspondent
Published January 4, 2005
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans unexpectedly retreated Monday night from a proposal to loosen ethics standards for all House members and also restored a rule that would force Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step down from his leadership post if he is indicted.
The surprise moves came after Democrats and public-interest organizations loudly complained when House Republicans had entertained a relaxation of ethics rules that would make it harder for lawmakers to be disciplined.
"It had become a distraction from our important legislative agenda," said John Feehery, press secretary for House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), in explaining why House Republicans suddenly reversed course.
On the eve of the opening of the 109th Congress, DeLay, a Texas Republican, stood up in a meeting of House Republicans and asked that the House reinstate a rule that leaders would have to give up their jobs if indicted by a grand jury. The GOP-controlled House overturned that rule last year. An Austin, Texas, grand jury has already charged three of DeLay's associates in an ongoing investigation of legislative redistricting.
Jonathan Grella, a spokesman for the majority leader, said DeLay was "denying the Democrats their lone issue. Anything that could undermine our agenda has to be nipped in the bud."
Hastert proposed that House Republicans jettison a rule change that would have required a specific finding of wrongdoing for ethical violations. This change would have wiped out an ethics standard requiring that members conduct themselves "at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."
DeLay and other GOP members had complained this standard was too broad and allowed the panel to discipline lawmakers on the appearance of wrongdoing, not specific misdeeds. But Democrats and public-interest organizations said it was a powerful standard that members should adhere to.
As Congress prepared to open a new session Tuesday with major issues such as Social Security and immigration reform on the agenda, the relaxation of ethics rules had turned into a major political issue and threatened to set an early partisan tone for the session.
`Too hot' to handle
"The issue simply became too hot for them to handle," said a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.
The fact that a number of Republicans had opposed the changes also played a role in the decision, Feehery said. Leaders got together and decided to stop the controversy.
Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), who is being forced out as chairman of the ethics committee, came out earlier Monday against weakening the rules.
"This is not the way to effect meaningful reform," Hefley said in a statement. "Ethics reform must be bipartisan and this package is not bipartisan."
The proposals go before the full House on Tuesday.
Earlier, as controversy raged over the proposed changes, President Bush complained at a White House reception for new members of Congress that Washington "is sometimes too partisan and political. My hope is that we can show the nation that we can come together and achieve big things for the good of the country."
In that vein, the president said aid for tsunami victims should be the first order of business. Bush also hopes to push through his initiatives on Social Security, tax reform, energy, tort reform and immigration, and he is likely to find himself replacing at least one Supreme Court justice and possibly more.
Though the Republicans backed off on the ethics rules, Brookings Institution congressional expert Thomas Mann said he sees a potentially divisive congressional session ahead if the GOP does not reach out to Democrats and compromise on such substantive policy questions as Social Security and tax reform.
"The two parties are positioned for war, and war is what we will get," he said.
Some House Republicans, led by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and others, opposed the effort to soften the ethics rules and hoped at least to water them down. Shays claimed 23 of the 232 GOP members opposed the changes, meaning the GOP by itself would not have had a majority of the 435-member House in favor of weakening the rules.
Before backing off on the changes, DeLay and other GOP members complained the standard requiring members to conduct themselves in a way not to reflect badly on the House was too broad.
In fact, the ethics panel last year used this general provision to admonish DeLay for using the Federal Aviation Administration to track down Democrats in the Texas redistricting battle and for appearing to give contributors special access on pending energy legislation.
Public-interest organizations said ending the general standard of conduct provision would wipe out a powerful tool to discipline lawmakers.
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a self-proclaimed watchdog group, said the GOP majority would be establishing a "catch me if you can" rule in its place.
Fitton added: "Tom DeLay is the poster boy for ethics problems in the House."
DeLay more of a target
DeLay's role in helping to widen the GOP margin in the House has made him more popular with House Republicans and a target for Democratic critics. As a result of the Texas redistricting, Republicans picked up an additional three seats.
In Bush's first four years in office, the House virtually rubber-stamped his tax cuts and other proposals despite only a slim Republican margin. DeLay and Hastert are generally credited with keeping the tight discipline required for such a record.
Meanwhile, the Senate once again is expected to be the biggest battleground on major issues in the new session.