CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
– ETHICS
April 13, 2009 – 9:37 a.m.
New Ethics Office, Established Last Year, Open for Business
By Bennett Roth, CQ Staff
More than a year after the House created the Office of Congressional Ethics, the quasi-independent panel is beginning to show signs that it is tackling investigative duties assigned to it by lawmakers, some of whom had raised questions about what the office was doing.
It was disclosed last week — though not by the ethics office, which is bound by secrecy rules — that the office had begun reviewing possible contacts between associates of Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. and then-Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich over naming Jackson to Barack Obama ’s old Senate seat.
Blagojevich was indicted April 2 on 16 felony counts including allegations that he sought to use his power of appointing Obama’s Senate successor for personal and political gain.
Jackson, who confirmed the probe after it was leaked to the press, maintained he has done nothing wrong and said he is cooperating with the new ethics office.
Aside from that probe, the ethics office also has launched its Web site — www.oce.house.gov — which spells out the information that outside groups must provide when lodging complaints. At the end of this month, the board is expected to approve its first quarterly report that will include the number — but not the names — of ethics cases it has initiated in its two-step investigatory process .
David E. Skaggs, a former Democratic congressman from Colorado (1987-1999) who is chairman of the new office, said in an email that the first quarter activity report should generally address the question: “What have you been up to?”
Before they took their spring break, a number of House members had complained that they had heard little from the office, which was created in March 2008 by House Democratic leaders to show they were combating what Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the “culture of corruption” under GOP control.
“It seemed like it disappeared,” said Rep. Kevin Brady , R-Texas, who added that he always believed the office was “more theater than substance.”
Aiming at Transparency
The House established the office in part to bring more transparency and independence to the ethics process, which had been the sole domain of the House Committee of Standards of Official Conduct, the formal name of the ethics committee.
Critics complained that House ethics probes often dragged on for years and rarely resulted in stiff penalties because House members were reluctant to judge one of their own too harshly. For example, a current House ethics committee investigation of the personal finances of Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel , which was initiated in the 110th Congress, still has not been completed.
The office is overseen by a board made up of eight members who are not currently in Congress, although a number of them, including the chairman, Skaggs, and co-chairman, former CIA director and Florida GOP Rep. Porter Goss, previously served in the House. The panel is evenly split between members appointed by the House Democratic and Republican leadership.
The resolution setting up the office included strict rules on confidentiality. The office can make public the target of its investigations only if it refers a case to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and only if that panel refuses to take act on that case within 45 days. Otherwise the ethics office makes public its investigation a year after it makes its report.
Those confidentiality rules make it difficult for outside groups to evaluate whether the new ethics office is being effective, said Meredith McGehee, the policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group.
“Unless you have a leak it is difficult to know what the heck the office is doing,” she said. McGehee, however, praised the board for agreeing to publish the number of cases it is investigating on a quarterly basis, adding that it was not required to do so. The House ethics committee issues a report at the end of each Congress; the Senate ethics committee now releases a report annually.
For example, Republicans have been aggressively pushing for investigations of powerful Defense Appropriations Subcommittee chairman Rep. John P. Murtha , D-Pa., and his ties to The PMA Group. Clients of PMA — a defense lobbyist — received earmarks thanks to Murtha, who garnered campaign contributions from those with ties to the firm, including its founder and his relatives.
However, because of the confidentiality rules imposed on the ethics office, it is unlikely the public will know anytime soon if the office is investigating Murtha, unless there is a news leak.
However, McGehee said that the disclosure that the Office of Congressional Ethics was looking into Jackson was a positive sign that the panel was beginning to take action, but she added, “It is unfortunate it has taken it this long to get going.”
Referrals From Outside Groups
Unlike the House ethics committee, the office can initiate cases based on referrals from outside groups and individuals or from media reports. Although there is no time limit on cases before the House ethics committee, the Office of Congressional Ethics, must meet firm deadlines for its investigations. A preliminary investigation, which can be initiated with the approval of two members, one from each party, must be completed within 30 days.
If three board members approve, the probe can then proceed to a fuller review that can last 45 days with a 14-day extension allowed. At that point the board must report its findings to the House Ethics committee, which solely has the authority to recommend to the full House any punishment.
William Frenzel, an OCE board member and former GOP congressman from Minnesota (1971-91), said the ethics office took so long to begin its investigatory work because the panel had to get organized, hire a staff, and come up with rules to guide both the process and board conduct.
Some lawmakers, however, question whether the office is just adding an extra investigatory layer that further delays the process. Rep. Jeff Flake , R-Ariz., who has offered several privileged resolutions asking the Ethics Committee to look into ties between the PMA lobbying firm and the lawmakers who secured earmarks for it, said the House ethics committee should be handling all investigations. Under the current setup, he said, both the new office and the House Ethics Committee could be simultaneously investigating the same target.
Skaggs said there was no easy way to tell whether the office is speeding up ethics investigations or slowing them down.
“Our rules were fashioned not with speed in mind, but in order to provide due process and notice to those who might be affected,” Skaggs said in his emailed response.
The board has hired four full-time staffers led by Leo Wise, the staff director and chief counsel, who previously worked as a lawyer at the Justice Department. The board has also hired as a senior consultant Bill Cable, a former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md.
The office does not have a fixed budget but is funded out of a special House fund.
Even though it conducts investigations separately from the House ethics committee, the new office is required to keep that panel informed when it initiates any probes, which it did before the spring recess began, according to one of the ethics panel’s members, G. K. Butterfield, D-N.C.
“The OCE has organized,” said Butterfield. “And from what we understand they are available to take citizen complaints.”
Comments
We already have corruption in the administration by killing E-Verify, so 300.000 plus illegal workers can get hired, along with Americans--who have a right to the limited jobs. Hope we have a few Democrats interested in jobs for the American People? Perhaps the new candidates for President Obama cabinet he selects, is not a anti-sovereignty, pro-illegal immigrant lawmaker? Let's face it, Solis, Napolitano, Clinton, Salazer, Vilsack, La Hood, Emanuel all have solid "F" regarding illegal immigration enforcement. Our old Friend Sen. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein all signed off on E-Verify that would have saved jobs for Americans, so they didn't have to be in competition with illegal labor. Now we have President Obama pondering another Amnesty, when back in 1986 the Sinpson/Mazzoli bill was made law? It was signed by Ronald Reagan and Liberal Sen.Ted Kennedy swore their would never be another AMNESTY. The Act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants, requiring businesses to attest to their workers immigration status. The law granted amnesties to certain illegal aliens who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and who had resided here continuously. It was mainly for the sake of 3 million agricultural workers, but once again was mired in fraud and dishonesty. It might have worked, except the next waves of illegal families started pouring through wide open border, demanding even more rights from the American people. So the question simply is? Why ANOTHER AMNESTY? It's because previous administration intentionally never intended to enforce the laws back then or today! Kennedy certainly didn't? As usual the American people have been played for fools! Anything that smells of rigid enforcement has been killed or weakened, to clear the way for the free movement of cheap labor. Instigated by free trade entities and clandestine progress towards a North American Union, that represents a direct attack on our Constitution. The heritage Foundation has analyzed the consequences of a new AMNESTY. Which will not only give 40 million illegal immigrants, even more access to government benefits? Then afford them the right to sponsor whole families, whom will end up being another financial burden on taxpayers. Unlike the last Amnesty the people are very much informed via the Internet of the consequences, and will lay siege to every Senator or Representative. Just like E-Verify and other new enforcement laws we will try to kill any new Amnesty. We should demand use the 1986 act (IRCA), and strictly enforce its laws as it was intended?
Congress and ethics -- an oxymoron. Congress has been an ethics free zone for the last 15 years at least.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: