House's self-policing questioned

By Mike Soraghan
The Denver Post

Majority Leader Tom DeLay may be investigated.

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

WASHINGTON — Accusations of wrongdoing by one of the nation's most powerful politicians is putting the House ethics committee in an unwelcome spotlight.

The committee, chaired by Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., is expected to decide as early as this week whether to investigate charges of improper fund raising by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

The high-profile case is intertwined with a criminal investigation in Texas that yielded indictments of three DeLay aides.

	Rep. Joel Hefley chairs the House ethics committee.

The combination is drawing increasing scrutiny to the creaky ethics machinery of Congress, which is responsible for ensuring that Congress polices itself.

"People wonder why there's corruption in the House, and the reason is Hefley is soft on corruption," said Gary Ruskin, executive director of the nonpartisan Congressional Accountability Project. "Both political parties want a system set up so that corruption is possible in the House, and that's what they're getting."

Hefley isn't responding publicly to such criticism. House doorkeepers won't even deliver messages to him on the House floor. But he has defended the process in joint statements with co-chairman Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va.

"We seek simply to apply the rules in a fair, nonpartisan and even-handed manner, to the end of protecting the integrity and the reputation of the House of Representatives," they wrote in March.

One thing has been missed in the budding debate over whether ethics committee Republicans will be willing to brave the wrath of a powerful leader known as "the Hammer." Hefley already has — many times.

Hefley publicly criticized the way DeLay picked new committee chairmen in 2003, saying candidates' fund-raising abilities played too large a role. With bluntness uncharacteristic for Capitol Hill, Hefley called it "unseemly" and likened it to "buying seats."

As ethics chairman, Hefley also blocked DeLay's proposal to loosen rules on corporate-funded trips when charities are involved. And Hefley has been a thorn in the side of leaders such as DeLay on spending issues, embarrassing Republicans for budget-busting spending bills.

In previously unpublished remarks from a June interview as the ethics issue began to heat up, Hefley made clear his distaste for DeLay.

"He's let me know repeatedly I'm not part of his team, and that's fine," Hefley said. "I don't want to be part of his team." Later in the interview, he said, "Three charges have been filed against DeLay. I'll handle those in the ethics committee like I would handle anything else. He knows I would not use this as a way to get back at him for our disagreements."

Hefley has given no indication how he might vote. But because the 10-member committee is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, it would take at least one Republican voting against DeLay for the committee to start a formal investigation.

That decision is due soon for the allegations from Rep. Chris Bell, D-Texas, who broke an unofficial "ethics truce" in June with a three-pronged ethics complaint.

He charged that DeLay solicited contributions in exchange for help on legislation, illegally funneled corporate contributions and improperly tried to marshal federal aviation officials to help in enacting a DeLay-backed redistricting plan.

Bell had little to lose after being defeated this year in a primary for a district redrawn as part of DeLay's no-holds-barred campaign to boost the number of Republican House seats in Texas. DeLay and others have sought to dismiss the ethics complaint and the criminal investigation in Texas as politically motivated.

But watchdog groups say the politics of power favors DeLay, and they question how the House can justify not looking into ethics charges in an affair that's yielding criminal indictments.

"To just turn their back on this, when a grand jury has gone in and returned indictments, is just not credible, and it reflects poorly on the House," Common Cause spokeswoman Mary Boyle said.

Congress long has faced questions about its ability to police its members. The ethics committee commanded some respect in past years. But the rules were rewritten in 1997, replaced with what Ruskin dubs "The Corrupt Politicians Protection Act," stripping away the ability of individuals and outside groups to bring ethics complaints. Essentially, that meant that a complaint had to come from a House member.

Hefley took the job of ethics chairman reluctantly. He doesn't list the chairmanship on his official Web page. After presiding over the July 2002 hearings on whether to expel the bombastic Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, who had been convicted of corruption in federal criminal court, he called the process "painful."

"I didn't come up here to police my fellow members," he said after Traficant was expelled on a 420-1 vote.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

E-mail this article

Print this article

Search archive

More nation & world headlines...