The House Ethics Committee has failed to police members of Congress for decades now. An effort to change the system resulted in creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). But, House Ethics doesn't like OCE. Why? Eliza Newlin Carney explains:

The ethics committee's real beef with the OCE, while cloaked in technical jargon, appears to boil down to two complaints: The OCE is being too transparent and too hard on members. Given the Standards Committee's long history of papering over and dropping ethics complaints, this should argue in favor of the OCE's work, not against it.

And while the leaked activity report conveys the initial impression of an ethics committee hard at work, that document dates to July -- which also means that the panel's been investigating dozens of lawmakers for several months with no action.

The committee recently announced that it will investigate alleged ethics violations by California Reps. Maxine Waters (D) and Laura Richardson (D), as recommended by the OCE. It's also busy with ongoing probes involving Reps. John Murtha, D-Pa., and Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., among dozens of others. All this should be more than enough to keep the ethics committee busy -- without wasting time sniping at the OCE for doing its job.

Unfortunately, the House Ethics Committee seems to think its job is protecting members, not policing them.

The ethics report unintentionally released last week continues to generate interest and analysis. Over the weekend, the Washington Post examined the political implications:

After years of criticism that congressional lawmakers were reluctant to investigate their colleagues, the disclosure in recent days of a sensitive document from the House ethics committee offers the contradictory portrait of a panel actively pursuing a range of probes even as Democrats under scrutiny remain in positions of power.

The 22-page document revealed that the ethics committee, as of late July, was looking into the activities of at least 19 lawmakers, including reviews of home mortgages and interviews about corporate-backed trips for members of Congress to Caribbean resorts. Combined with the inquiries being conducted by a new ethics office, the document showed a far more robust set of investigations than previously revealed.

But the document also brings potential political peril for  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whose party claimed the majority in November 2006 after she promised to "drain the swamp" of corruption on Capitol Hill. Two and a half years into Pelosi's reign, more than 25 Democrats have been targeted for ethics reviews by the two ethics bodies, while just seven Republicans appeared to be under scrutiny, according to the document.

Is anyone really surprised. The House of Representatives created a new ethics system last year, adding the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), but not giving it real power. Now, the OCE is clashing with the House Ethics Committee over complaints against two members. And, as we've said many times, the House Ethics Committee doesn't police its own members. Again, is anyone really surprised that this isn't working? Will leadership in the House make it work? From The Hill:

Tensions between the two ethics bodies have been brewing for months and have been running especially hot in the last two weeks as each side has accused the other of trying to undermine authority and overstep bounds.

Ethics committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) last week tried to clear the air by meeting with the entire OCE board, including former Reps. David Skaggs (D-Colo.) and Porter Goss (R-Fla.), its chairman and co-chairman.

But the bad blood and distrust were evident in a quarterly report the OCE released Tuesday, which called for the release of the OCE report.

(The panel does not have to release the report if it decides to empanel an investigative subcommittee, a sign that the ethics committee is seriously investigating the allegations.)

On Sept. 16, the ethics committee announced that it had voted to extend consideration of the Graves and Waters matters for an additional 45 days. As the OCE reads the calendar, the report should be made official Friday.

Ethics also had taken a shot at OCE, chastising it for failing to provide what it considered “exculpatory” information to Graves. The OCE fired back, arguing that the ethics committee had “mischaracterized” its report in the Graves case.

The OCE has taken action.  The new entity has made its first recommendations to the House Ethics Committee, via Roll Call (subscription required):

The Office of Congressional Ethics reported Monday that it has recommended the House ethics panel open five investigations — which focus on trips to the Caribbean by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, according to the ethics committee.

This marks the first time that the panel has made recommendations since the House voted to establish the quasi-independent ethics watchdog in early 2008.

Although the OCE status report does not detail the recommendations, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct confirmed the proposed investigations concerned five Members who attended privately sponsored trips to the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008.

According to the OCE’s quarterly report, the office referred all five reports to the ethics panel in late May, along with one additional matter that it recommended for dismissal.

The House Office of Congressional Ethics is conducting six investigations right now.  But, besides the case of Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., we don't know who is being investigated. According to today's Roll Call (sub req), we may know in mid-July or we may never know:

The six investigations nearing completion — all approved for second-phase review in late March or early April — are scheduled to end as early as May 10, although each is eligible for a two-week extension that would push their completion to late May.

Once those probes are completed, the OCE’s board must vote “as soon as practicable” on its recommendation to the ethics committee, along with reports on the allegations.

But those reports, and any recommendations issued by the OCE’s board — chaired by ex-Rep. David Skaggs (D-Colo.) and co-chaired by ex-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) — remain confidential for another 45 calendar days once they reach the House ethics committee.

That timeline translates to a public release date of no earlier than mid-July for the half-dozen investigations now under way, but could be even longer if the House ethics panel opts to delay publicizing the reports for an additional 45 days, which it is allowed to do.

Although the House ethics panel is required to issue a public statement if it utilizes the 45-day delay, the committee has not issued rules specifying what information it would include in such a statement, such as the names of Member or House aides or employees under review.

And the reports could remain confidential for a longer period, if the House ethics panel opts to form an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations. In such a scenario, the report could be withheld for up to a one-year period, although the ethics committee must announce the creation of a subcommittee along with the name of the accused and the nature of the violation.

In addition, in some instances, the reports could remain permanently confidential. In the event the OCE recommends the investigation be dismissed, and the ethics committee reaches the same conclusion, the reports will not be publicly released.

Somehow, this all feels like nothing has really changed.  The House sure protects its own.

The Charleston (WV) Post and Courier isn't too impressed with the pace of ethics reform in Congress -- and makes a valid point comparing the Blagojevich scandal to the way Congress operates:

Rep. Flake is pressing the House Ethics Committee to look at the impropriety of allowing members to receive campaign contributions from earmark beneficiaries. So far it hasn't taken up his challenge.

Meanwhile, the new Office of Congressional Ethics announced Wednesday it has launched six probes that could result in referrals to the House Ethics Committee. It is known to be looking into allegations that fundraisers for Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., offered to raise money for former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich if he would appoint Jackson to the U.S. Senate.

It's hard to see how that exchange would be much different from taking campaign contributions from earmark beneficiaries.  As long as Congress tolerates rules that invite abuse, it can't be considered serious about ethics reform.

In December, Melanie Sloan also explained in a Huffington Post piece that she didn't see a difference either:

The outrage expressed over Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's conduct is a little hard to swallow. Of course, attempting to sell a U.S. Senate seat is bad. Ditto, trying to force a newspaper to fire a testy newspaper editor. And trading government action for campaign contributions? I am shocked, shocked, shocked, to learn such back scratching takes place in the halls of government.

Isn't trading official action for campaign contributions how our system works? Or did I miss the excellent foreign service exam scores of the large donors who become ambassadors? And all the lobbyists who donate exclusively to members of Congress on the committees with jurisdiction over their issues? Simply endorsing sound policies. Defense contractors contributing generously to appropriators who generously earmark? Undoubtedly a coincidence.

By the mere fact of issuing a criminal complaint, prosecutors are claiming the Blagejovich case is somehow different, but I don't see why.

Over the weekend, the NY Times ran an editorial titled, "Is the House Swamp Drained Yet?"  CREW thinks it's a good question.  And, we have to think that the answer so far is: N0.  Here's what the Times opined:

Speaker Pelosi won her job with a convincing denunciation of the Republican Congress’s “culture of corruption,” plus a ringing promise to “drain the swamp” where House ethical standards festered. She deserves credit for forcing through the new quasi-independent Office of Congressional Ethics to vet and funnel complaints to the sitting ethics committee.

The office has begun work, though lacking critical subpoena power. It has 10 reviews of allegations under way, including one into the potential involvement of Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. in the alleged auction of President Obama’s vacated Senate seat by former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

It remains to be seen whether the new office results in greater transparency and public confidence in Congress — or more of the rope-a-dope ineffectiveness epitomized by the ethics committee. Speaker Pelosi should have had Mr. Rangel surrender his gavel during his ever lengthening ethics investigation. This failure will be compounded unless she prods the committee to fill its embarrassing absence of a chief counsel.

Congress hasn't shown any inclination to police itself.  Even with the new office, we're still waiting -- and the swamp isn't drained on either side of Capitol Hill.

The Office of Congressional Ethics issued its first quarterly report today, which stated that the office has undertaken "preliminary reviews" in ten cases.  As of now, none of the cases under review have been sent to the House Committee on Standards of Conduct Conduct, commonly referred to as the House Ethics Committee. From the report:

A. Preliminary Reviews 
The Board authorized 6 preliminary reviews at its meeting on February 23, 2009.  These preliminary reviews formally began one week later, as provided under House and OCE rules, on March 2, 2009.  
 
The Board authorized 4 preliminary reviews at its meeting on March 27, 2009.  These preliminary reviews formally began one week later, as provided under House and OCE rules, on April 3, 2009.  
 
B. Second Phase Reviews 
The Board authorized 6 second-phase review at its meeting on March 27, 2009 and at a follow- up meeting on April 2, 2009.  The Board will also have a regularly scheduled monthly meeting in April.    

C. Referrals to the Ethics Committee
No matter has reached the end of a second-phase review as of the date of this report.  As a result, the Board has not yet voted on whether to refer any matter under review to the Ethics Committee.   

The Washington Post has more:

According to the report, the OCE launched a total of 10 "preliminary reviews" at two meetings -- one in February and one in March -- and subsequently authorized six "second-phase" reviews. (It is not clear whether the other four probes are still active, or have been ended.) The difference between the two types of review is the standard of evidence. A preliminary probe begins when two members -- one from each party -- agree that there is "a reasonable basis to believe that a violation may have occurred." The second-phase review comes when members say there is "probable cause" to believe an offense happened.

The OCE can take up an investigation of its own accord, or -- unlike the House ethics committee -- it can review charges made by outside groups. The office reports that it was contacted by 37 "private citizens" through March, though some of those contacts involved people requesting information about the office rather than submitting allegations.

Remember all the talk about the new Office of Congressional Ethics and how it was going to change the way ethics issues were handled in the House?   We do.  We're still waiting.  We had very low expectations in the first place.

John Bresnahan from Politico took a look at has, or more accurately, hasn't happened on the ethics front in the House: 

But while the new Office of Congressional Ethics is finally in operation — a year after the House authorized it and more than two years after Pelosi was sworn in as speaker — the office has little to show for its work and is encumbered by layers of secrecy. It may be July at the earliest before the office reveals whether it has actually recommended any cases to the House ethics committee, and the specifics of its investigations will remain shrouded from public view.

The slow pace in getting the outside ethics office geared up also shows a larger problem House and Senate Democrats have on the ethics front — especially with troubled lawmakers such as Reps. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) — and that has party strategists privately concerned about a backlash in 2010.

“Republicans are getting some traction on the ethics issue,” admitted one Democratic insider. “What they are saying is getting play outside the Beltway.”

 That this new entity isn't working isn't a surprise to CREW:

“It was a bad setup in the first place,” said Melanie Sloan, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal watchdog group. “I think they were set up to fail. I think the way the [OCE] was created, and the strictures on it, make it impossible to be effective.”

CREW has been skeptical from the beginning.  Here's Melanie's statement from last March:

We are skeptical of the latest so-called ethics reform measure. Given the pathetic performance of the Ethics Committee over the past decade we have advocated for the creation of a new, independent ethics office. Nevertheless, without subpoena power or the ability to consider complaints filed by anyone other than members of Congress, this new office, like the Ethics Committee itself, promises to be nothing more than a paper tiger. Rather than providing for the vigorous enforcement of ethics rules, the House merely has created a new layer of bureaucracy to insulate members from the consequences of their unethical activities. When the American public realizes there are no teeth behind this latest reform effort, confidence in Congress will be further eroded, the cynics will claim victory and we will be no closer to the goal of a cleaner Congress than we were at the beginning of the "cleanest Congress in history. "

Paper tiger seems like an apt descriptor.

CREW has been very clear that we are very skeptical about the new House ethics office.  The existing committee could work if members could police themselves.

Today, House leaders announced the members of the new committee:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday announced joint appointments to a landmark ethics review board that for the first time will allow private citizens to review allegations against members.

Still, four out of six members of the board for the newly created Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) will be former members of Congress, including former CIA Director Porter Goss (R-Fla.), who will serve as co-chairman.

The other board members include Rep. David Skaggs (D-Colo.), who will serve as chairman of the board, former Rep. Yvonne Brathwaite Burke (D-Calif.), former Rep. Karan English (D-Ariz.), former House Chief Administrative Officer Jay Eagen and Allison Hayward, the former chief of staff to Bradley Smith, a Republican-appointed former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

Two additional former members will serve as alternate appointees to the board: former federal judge and ex-Rep. Abner Mikva (D-Ill.) and former Rep. Bill Frenzel (R-Minn.).