House Democrats prepare for ethics vote

House Democratic leaders are prepared to move forward with a vote on an independent ethics office Tuesday amid continuing rancor in their caucus over giving non-lawmakers power to investigate members.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) huddled with her leadership team Monday evening to determine the week’s agenda. Later that night, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-Md.) office released a schedule that included the ethics bill coming to the floor on Tuesday.

{mosads}For the last two weeks, Democratic members have assailed the proposal put forth by Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.), who chaired a bipartisan ethics task force that worked on the issue for more than a year. Two weeks ago when Democrats tried to move forward with a vote on the resolution, Democrats openly revolted in a Rules Committee meeting, attacking the plan as promoting partisan witch-hunts and a return to the open ethics warfare of the past.

The deep division in the caucus caused Democratic leaders to yank the bill from a scheduled House vote twice during the past two weeks. Late last week, Democratic leaders could be seen on the House floor buttonholing a wide array of individual members.

This time around, there was virtual silence from the Democrats on the Rules Committee before the Monday night vote on the resolution, which passed on a party-line voice vote. The rule governing the bill will not allow for extended debate or amendments.

Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), the panel’s ranking member, and Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the senior GOP member of the ethics committee, blasted the resolution and the refusal to allow any debate or amendments when it comes to the floor for a vote.

The Rules Committee voted down several GOP proposals before approving the Democratic ethics measure for floor action, including a substitute offered by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the lead Republican on the ethics task force. That proposal would have added four former lawmakers to the ethics committee itself as a way to reform the system.

Republicans oppose giving any investigative power to a new entity made up of non-lawmakers. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has aggressively opposed the measure and has predicted that most Republicans would vote against it on the House floor.

Hastings’s attempt to create a rule allowing three separate floor votes, one on the Capuano proposal, the Smith proposal and another sponsored by Reps. Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Zack Wamp (R-Tenn.) failed on an a party-line vote.

During the first Rules Committee meeting two weeks ago, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), a member of the panel, said both the Capuano proposal and a Republican alternative “suck.”

He now says a revised Capuano plan “sucks less than it used to” and believes Democrats would have the votes to pass it once it comes to the floor.

Despite all the complaints, Democrats believe that members will be reluctant to vote against any bill aimed at reforming the ethics process when it hits the floor.

“When people begin to get a feel for what’s at stake, I think they’ll support it,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democrat who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He made the remarks after emerging from Monday’s Democratic leadership meeting.

The measure would change House rules to add a new layer of ethics scrutiny by creating an Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The OCE would be comprised of six board members, none of whom could be sitting lawmakers. It would take allegations against members from outside groups and individuals, investigate them and decide whether to forward them on to the full ethics committee for further review.

In the revised plan, which passed the Rules Committee Monday night, the Speaker would appoint three members to the board and the minority leader would appoint three members. They could do so only if the other side agreed on their choice, a change from the original plan, which would have allowed for partisan appointments if they could not agree. They also would pick at least one alternate each in case vacancies arise.

The plan would require the agreement of at least one Republican and one Democrat on the board to initiate a preliminary review. In order to move to a second phase of a review, three members of the board must vote to move forward. At the end of the preliminary review, if there is no vote to move forward, the matter is terminated. Four members can vote to terminate a preliminary review.

The OCE also could not make recommend ethics committee action within 60 days prior to a federal, state or local election.

The latest version of the resolution also bars OCE staff along with its board members from talking to the target of the allegation, and from any members, office or employee of the House from communicating with the board or OCE staff about matters under review except when the board authorizes it.

As of Monday night, the measure contains new language mandating that OCE board members and staff sign an oath of confidentiality and the OCE must establish procedures to prevent unauthorized disclosures of its information, and investigate breaches of confidentiality and take “appropriate action” for any breaches.

It also includes a provision allowing a member targeted by the allegation to testify before the OCE board votes on a recommendation to the ethics committee.

In addition, new restrictions would be placed on OCE staff. It prohibits staff from acting in a partisan political manner affecting any congressional or presidential election. No staff can write for a publication or accept a speaking role on any subject related to the OCE without approval of the OCE chair or co-chair.