By Edward Epstein and Alan K. Ota, CQ Staff

House Democrats are struggling to line up votes within their own caucus for creating an outside ethics investigative body — a proposal so strongly resisted by Republicans that the majority may not be able to rely on crossover votes.

In an unusual evening caucus Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi again made the case for putting early ethics reviews in the hands of trusted outsiders rather than sitting House members. And in response to complaints from the rank and file about the initial ethics proposal (H Res 895), she walked the caucus through proposed amendments.

Those inside the meeting said more persuasion would be needed before the measure was brought to the floor, though a vote Thursday was still possible.

“There are two sides of the caucus — those who want to prevent stonewalling and those who want to prevent witch hunts,” said Michael Arcuri , D-N.Y., who described himself as needing more time to study the package.

“It sounds like there are a lot of undecideds,” said Tim Walz , D-Minn., who supports the leadership’s proposal.

While the Democratic leadership works through its whip list, Republicans are accusing them of reneging on a promise to negotiate a bipartisan plan.

That side of the dispute arose Feb. 27, when Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., said the sponsor of the Democrats’ ethics legislation, Michael E. Capuano of Massachusetts, should meet with the author of the Republicans’ version, Lamar Smith of Texas, to discuss Smith’s counterproposal (H Res 1003).

“This discussion has yet to take place,” Smith said Tuesday. “We have two different proposals but we do not have a bipartisan ethics task force proposal.”

Capuano said he had corresponded with Smith by e-mail and would meet with him soon, but asked, “Are you supposed to negotiate with somebody who already said they hate the proposal?”

Aides to Pelosi, D-Calif., said that she and Hoyer had clearly stated they would bring Capuano’s bill to the floor for a vote and they also wanted there to be a discussion of Smith’s plan by Capuano and Smith, who had been chairman and ranking member of a special ethics task force.

“I would propose that the Capuano-Smith committee consider its provisions and report to us, as they did with the current proposal for an outside entity,” Pelosi wrote in a Feb. 29 letter to Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio.

In addition to disagreeing about what kind of talks have been promised, the two parties have different interpretations on what Capuano’s amendments would do.

Capuano says his revised proposal would treat a tied vote of the six-member board as a decision against moving a probe forward. Republicans read the same language and contend a tie vote would keep an investigation alive.

“The changes he has made not only aren’t enough to substantially improve the bill, they aren’t even as much as he’s selling them as,” said Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference.

“A 3-3 vote moves it forward,” said Putnam. “That hasn’t changed.”

The initial proposal also would have permitted separate appointments if 90 days passed without a joint nomination.

Capuano’s revised plan would abolish the time limit and require that all six appointments be made jointly.

GOP Plan

Smith favors expanding the current ethics committee.

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct currently consists of five sitting Democrats and five sitting Republicans. Smith suggests enlarging the committee to include four former House members, two from each party.

He would like the committee’s chairmanship to rotate between the two parties, and he would require the panel to release monthly reports on the status of its investigations.

“This is all a difficult balance,” said Capuano.

“We’re not there yet,” said Majority Whip James E. Clyburn , D-S.C.