Much Easier Said Than Done
It's slow going on the Democratic push for ethics reform
In the end, Rep. Chris Van Hollen's congressional ethics bill passed by a vote of 382 to 37. But no one was kidding himself about the tortuous path that led to such a lopsided final tally. "There was heavy lifting on this to get us where we are," said the Maryland Democrat. "In the final analysis, the members came through."
In the final analysis, maybe. But the five months of Democratic control have seen only halting movement on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's pledge to create "the most ethical Congress in history," as rank-and-file members bristle behind the scenes about lobbying and ethics restrictions. Activity on the Hill last week led to passage of a slate of reforms, but it also revealed just how entrenched the status quo can be—and how much heavy lifting is still ahead.
Slow progress. On the first day of Pelosi's speakership, the House adopted rules barring members from accepting gifts and private travel. Since then, progress has slowed to a crawl. The Senate in January passed reforms through legislation, rather than a change of rules, but that method required agreement from both houses. Last week, the House finally passed a companion bill, strengthening disclosure requirements and penalties for violators of lobbying law. It also approved Van Hollen's measure requiring lobbyists to file reports on "bundling"—donations collected from multiple sources and delivered to lawmakers as a package.
But the bill reached the floor only after other efforts were scrapped, including a requirement that lawmakers wait two years, rather than one, before becoming lobbyists. Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers fretted that the change could hurt efforts "to attract and retain top-flight staff." The leadership has struggled to win support from veteran lawmakers, who have long relied on the current system.
But neither new Democrats nor old felt any urgency to join GOP efforts to reprimand Rep. John Murtha. The combative Pennsylvanian was accused of threatening to deny military earmarks to a Republican House member who tried to cut funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center, a notoriously troubled project in Murtha's district. Though the confrontation seemed to violate rules the Democrats themselves recently instituted, only two Democrats voted to let the reprimand effort go forward. Murtha apologized for the incident.
Earmarks. For reformers, there are other troubling signs. In May, the House Ethics Committee decided that a proposed earmark by California GOP Rep. Ken Calvert did not represent a conflict of interest in part because properties owned by Calvert would not be "affected uniquely" by a proposed transit center nearby, an interpretation critics say is so narrow that it makes finding a conflict all but impossible.
Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey has decided that earmarks will not be included in the text of spending bills until they are passed and in conference with the Senate. The move angered earmark opponents, who say they will have less time to find wasteful spending before bills become law.
For serious reform, good government proponents are pinning their hopes on a report from a bipartisan ethics task force. The report, nearly a month overdue but expected soon after Congress returns from recess, will most likely advocate the creation of an independent panel to monitor lawmakers. A similar idea was rejected by the Senate, and the proposal faces an uphill climb in the House.
"It's the fox guarding the henhouse," said Melanie Sloan, the head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "The members of Congress don't want to make rules about themselves."
But as the GOP learned last year, you shouldn't get too secure in the henhouse.
This story appears in the June 4, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.
advertisement
