Nap Time for Ethics
House panel does no business -- as usual.
Saturday, April 1, 2006; A16

REP. ROBERT W. NEY (R-Ohio) has been implicated in accepting lavish trips and other gifts from Jack Abramoff in exchange for helping the lobbyist's clients. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has been caught up in the Abramoff net as well; yesterday his former deputy chief of staff pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges arising from his dealings with Mr. Abramoff. On the Democratic side, a former aide to Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.) has pleaded guilty to helping Mr. Jefferson try to obtain bribes for brokering telecommunications deals in Africa. And that's not even the whole roster of alleged ethical improprieties. Busy times for the House ethics committee, right?

If you answered yes, you don't know this ethics committee. Fifteen months into the 109th Congress, the panel managed on Thursday to have its first real meeting of the Congress. Members gathered behind closed doors for six hours and . . . drumroll . . . agreed to continue a previously launched investigation of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) for distributing an intercepted cellphone call between House leaders in 1996. That's all.

This would be the same ethics committee whose chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), offered almost a year ago to name an investigative subcommittee to "review various allegations concerning travel and other actions by Mr. DeLay." If anything, the developments in the months since have only added to the argument for investigating Mr. DeLay and others. The ethics committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W. Va.), offered this understatement after the meeting: "This result falls far short of the committee's obligations in the current circumstances."

Whatever the reason for the stalemate, the panel's inactivity in the face of scandal is itself scandalous. Certainly, it's important that the ethics committee not take actions that interfere with the criminal investigations and prosecutions that have been sprouting from the Abramoff affair. But that doesn't mean it needs to be entirely inert, either. It's important that the committee not go into hibernation while prosecutors finish their work. Prosecutors and the ethics panel have separate roles, with the ethics committee responsible for monitoring potential rule violations that would not come close to being a criminal offense. In fact, there's a useful precedent that shows how both entities can do their work simultaneously: the ethics panel's investigation into former representative Bud Shuster (R-Pa.) at the same time that Mr. Shuster was the subject of a criminal probe.

The Senate just rejected a proposal for an independent congressional office to investigate complaints against members. The argument was that there was no evidence the Senate ethics committee itself wasn't up to the job. What, exactly, will the House ethics committee be able to say for itself when the issue comes up in that body?