Here's a brief excerpt from a CQ article on the current effort to establish an ethics commission for the House:

I don't expect Members of Congress to be historians, but can't they recall what happened when they snubbed reform just a few years ago?  Let's recap:

• In 1994, the Democrats lost a 40-year hold on the US House.  A significant factor was a series of scandals, some small, some big, many a product of the odd mix of arrogance and moribund-ness that comes from being in power too long.  The scandals kept coming: Speaker Wright, House post office, House bank, Rostenkowsi...and the Dems, along with the new President Clinton, dropped the ball on an opportunity to pass public financing of congressional campaigns.
• In 2006, the Republicans, taking only 12 years to become too-arrogant, lost the House.  This time, scandal was key to their loss - Abramoff, Delay, Foley, Cunningham became synonymous with Congressional scandal.  The Republicans, too, resisted reforms.

Now, most Republicans and a number of Democrats are resisting ethics oversight.  The ethics commission is the right thing to do - and it's in their own interest.

When will they ever learn?

The House passed a resolution 223 to 31 (yes, 31) to enforce a Contempt of Congress Citation on Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton this afternoon.  Advocates for checks on excesses of power should celebrate.

As the debate drew to a close the Republican minority walked off the floor, having unsuccessfully tried to delay the vote by calling a vote to adjourn.  These tactics are unbecoming of our government when we are faced with such vital constitutional challenges.  They put partisan interests before the public interest.

Common Cause has sent letters to every Representative stating that the Contempt of Congress Citation is not a partisan issue it is a Constitutional issue.  It is about the House and Senate asserting their Constitutional responsibility to check executive power as a co-equal branch of government.

The House has done the right thing today and sent a message that the Constitution must and will be protected against abuse and assault.  National security depends on the three branches of government operating as intended by the Founders.

This story got buried in the holiday news black hole - an exchange of letters between Brian Lamb, founder of C-SPAN (see Read More) and new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

C-SPAN asked the new House Speaker to allow more flexibility in their TV coverage of the House, to allow cameras to pan the floor in addition to the focus on the rostrum. Pelosi turned down the request, just as Newt Gingrich did when he became Speaker and was declaring a new era of openness for the House. Wrong decision by Gingrich, and wrong again by Pelosi.

Pelosi cited the "decorum" of the House -- apparently Members are doing things on the floor that they're embarassed the staid C-SPAN will televise to the nation. Sounds like the same old arguments of House leaders who originally opposed televising the proceedings at all (as did the Senate and, still, the Supreme Court).

C-SPAN also asked that vote tallies be made available immediately. There is currently an inexplicable delay in publishing the vote tallies in the House - which are already semi-public in lights in the House chamber. Pelosi said they would look at the issue, but cited some potential problems with "accuracy" and technical feasibility. Not credible. Just do it, Speaker Pelosi.

The Constitution puts faith in the Congress, trusting Congressmen to police themselves. Unfortunately, Congressmen have shown time and time again that that's something they are unwilling or unable to do. The investigation of Mark Foley's pedophilia will not be any different unless the House establishes an independent ethics commission to serve this constitutionally mandated role. Reports that there was a cover-up of Foley's habits are already circulating. To top it off, Dennis Hastert (R- IL) has personally handpicked members of the current Ethics Committee. This committee has not and obviously will not investigate anything thoroughly and seriously. U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) recognizes this, and is calling for an independent ethics commission.

We've been saying Congress can't police its own ethics. And we've got a petition telling Congress to come back, make information on what happened public and set up an independent ethics commission.

Here's another twist on policing themselves. Jonathan Turley, a well-know law prof here in DC, writes in the WaPo of his own experience as a page and proposes getting members of Congress out of the business of overseeing them.

As you read his column, about his own experiences and other page-related scandals, you see that this is another arena where Congress has failed to police itself, to keep its own House in order. Over many years and with different parties in charge. Here's part of what he says:

How come if you looked on the Speaker's web site today you see him bragging about passing the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, while he himself has spectacularly failed to protect the Pages working in the Capitol Building and under his protection from a Member of Congress under his control? "At home we put children first, and Republicans are doing just that in the House" his web site says, " We have all seen the disturbing headlines about sex offenders and crimes against children. These crimes cannot persist. Protecting our children from internet predators and child exploitation enterprises are just as high a priority as securing our borders from terrorists." The Speaker concludes.

I am sure many of you are as stunned, saddened and angry over the recent revelations that Representative Mark Foley engaged in possibly criminal behavior with minors serving as "pages" in Congress.  This scandal hits close to home for me. In 1993, my daughter Hannah was a page in the Senate. I sent her to Washington and I expected her to be safe and free from harassment. Thousands of other parents have done the same.

This incident raises a number of troubling questions that demand answers from a scandal-ridden Congress that doesn't like to answer questions. This is, after all, a Congress in which we've seen bribery, criminal convictions and former Members sit in jail. The House Ethics Committee has been inactive for the last two years.

And now this. The apparent cover up by House leaders of a Member of Congress who was sexually exploiting children is proof that the House is unable and incapable of policing itself, and that the system of peer review must be changed.

That's why Common Cause is calling on the House of Representatives to return to Washington DC before Election Day on Nov. 7 to establish an outside ethics commission to provide ethics oversight and enforcement of a body that has proven now beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is incapable of policing itself.

We also want House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-NY) and Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) to hold a public hearing and make public all information and all documents in their possession regarding the handling of Foley's sexually explicit e-mails.

We believe this is too serious an issue to wait until after the election. The House must reconvene before Election Day because the public has a right to know where every House Member who is up for re-election stands on their willingness to be held accountable.

You probably know that such a session of Congress would not be unprecedented. As recently as last year, Congress returned to Washington during its Easter Recess to consider the fate of Terri Schiavo.

Go here to sign our petition and tell Speaker Hastert to bring the House back.

The 109th Congress promised ethics reform in response to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, and has responded by steadily eroding the core values of the promises - travel bans and stronger ethics enforcement. Now, the House and Senate have the audacity to scale back the weak lobbyist disclosure measures that were passed in place of substantive reform. The House lobbyist disclosure bill passed May 3 and the House has yet to name negotiators to work on a compromise with the Senate. Therefore, Congress may adjourn this year without tightening restrictions on the dealings of lobbyists' with lawmakers. So much for lobbying reform in 2006.

The two chambers disagree on a number of provisions. For example, House Republicans contend that 527s, independent interest groups that run political ads, should be curbed. Senate Democrats, and a handful of Senate Republicans, have opposed these changes while failing to offer a tangible reform plan as an alternative.

If lobbyists are happy then Congress has failed. The bicameral impasse can be blamed on the House and Senate's lack of sincerity when promising reform measures. It is appalling that the most likely way to return reform to the negotiating table is another scandal. Lawmakers' proclivity is to respond to public demand. Maybe the public is not shouting loudly enough.