Quote:House Republicans voted Monday night in favor of a proposal that would weaken Congress' outside ethics watchdog and remove its independence.
Republican Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte's proposal would place the independent Office of Congressional Ethics -- an initial watchdog for House members but without power to punish members -- under oversight of those very lawmakers.
This will now be included in a larger rules package that will be voted on in the full House of Representatives Tuesday. Goodlatte argued that changing the ethics review process "strengthens the mission" of the office and it will remain the panel to review potential rules violations.
"It also improves upon due process rights for individuals under investigation, as well as witnesses called to testify. The (ethics office) has a serious and important role in the House, and this amendment does nothing to impede their work," Goodlatte said in a written statement Monday evening.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi slammed the move. "Republicans claim they want to 'drain the swamp,' but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House GOP has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions. Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress," she said in a statement Monday following the vote.
Pelosi added: "The amendment Republicans approved tonight would functionally destroy this office."
@NancyPelosi
Tmrw @HouseGOP will destroy the office that provides independent ethics process. So much for draining the swamp. http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/12172/ 8:11 PM - 2 Jan 2017 Pelosi Statement on Republicans Destroying Office of Congressional Ethics in Rules Package -...
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement after the House Republican Conference voted to include the Goodlatte amendment in the House Republicans Rules... democraticleader.gov
But GOP Rep. Hal Rogers, the Appropriations Committee chairman, told reporters he backed the proposal because "it's the right thing to do."
Rogers said there were "numerous examples" of members "who were falsely accused by this group who had to spend a fortune to get their good name restored so I think there's been an abuse."
Texas Congressman Bill Flores also backed the change saying the panel is "out of control, we don't even get constitutional rights, constitutional protections. They don't tell us who accuses us and they leak the data -- they are out of control." Currently the ethics panel operates as an independent, non-partisan entity that has the power to investigate misconduct against lawmakers, officers and staff of the United States House of Representatives. Originally created by Congress under Pelosi's speakership in the wake of multiple lobbying scandals, it continued to act as an independent body under then-House Speaker John Boehner.
The proposal carries the appearance of House members taking power away from the office that can investigate them for misconduct.
Members of both parties complain that panel often takes up matters based on partisan accusations from outside groups with political motivations, and once they launch a probe members have to mount expensive defense campaigns.
But outside ethics group point to the ethics panel as the only real entity policing members and argue its independent status and bipartisan board are an appropriate way to oversee investigations.
"Gutting the independent ethics office is exactly the wrong way to start a new Congress," said Chris Carson, spokesperson for League of Women Voters, in a statement. "This opens the door for special interest corruption just as the new Congress considers taxes and major infrastructure spending."
Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit watchdog group said the ethics office "has played a critical role in seeing that the congressional ethics process is no longer viewed as merely a means to sweep problems under the rug."
"If the 115th Congress begins with rules amendments undermining (the ethics office), it is setting itself up to be dogged by scandals and ethics issues for years and is returning the House to dark days when ethics violations were rampant and far too often tolerated," they said in a Monday night statement.
There was a story on NPR a few months back about a similar panel that oversees judges in a state (can't remember which one, somewhere in the south) that had oversight for decades but came under attack because judges didn't like being told they were wrong or overstepped their reach.
Amazing.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Why am I not surprised this was Goodlatte? A man whose wife is a major shareholder in a company trying to build a pipeline in our state that Goodlatte has been trying to help make happen would have nothing to gain from this move.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Quote:Members of both parties complain that panel often takes up matters based on partisan accusations from outside groups with political motivations, and once they launch a probe members have to mount expensive defense campaigns.
This is certainly a concern. It shouldn't be a vehicle for partisan attacks. However...
Quote:But outside ethics group point to the ethics panel as the only real entity policing members and argue its independent status and bipartisan board are an appropriate way to oversee investigations.
I'd be interested in knowing the "numerous" examples of members being forced to spend tons of money to defend themselves.
(01-03-2017, 08:25 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is certainly a concern. It shouldn't be a vehicle for partisan attacks. However...
I'd be interested in knowing the "numerous" examples of members being forced to spend tons of money to defend themselves.
I would, as well. If thatbis the case reform is certainly a good approach, but not this move.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
So you all are condemning the move when you have little to no idea if the committee is effective or even fair?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(01-03-2017, 10:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So you all are condemning the move when you have little to no idea if the committee is effective or even fair?
I am looking at it as anything that weakens oversight is bad. At least the optics are when one is claiming to want to "drain the swamp".
I haven't checked yet today to see if PE Trump tweeted his approval or disapproval yet. He may have been too busy watching the new Celebrity Apprentice.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(01-03-2017, 11:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: I am looking at it as anything that weakens oversight is bad. At least the optics are when one is claiming to want to "drain the swamp".
I haven't checked yet today to see if PE Trump tweeted his approval or disapproval yet. He may have been too busy watching the new Celebrity Apprentice.
But if it's bad oversight as some of the unhighlighted parts suggest, then it's worthless.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(01-03-2017, 10:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So you all are condemning the move when you have little to no idea if the committee is effective or even fair?
With respect, I'm not sure that the "proven results" test is good at measuring government offices or agencies. For example, would we want to cut the FAA just because we haven't had an airline crash in the past few years? Sometimes, just the existence of the office or agency prevents the recurrence of the bad thing that created the situation for the formation of the office or agency. Similar to the way cops parking empty cop cars along the side of a road slows traffic down without the need for a lot of tickets.
The point of this office, as opposed to the House Ethics Committee, was that this office is to be non-partisan. The Ethics Committee is dominated by the party in power in the House. The purpose of the office is to keep the party in power from "sweeping under the rug" ethics violations because of partisanship. At the time it was created, the House was led by Democrats and this office actually empowered the Republican minority to have an equal say on ethics issues.
(01-03-2017, 08:25 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is certainly a concern. It shouldn't be a vehicle for partisan attacks. However...
I'd be interested in knowing the "numerous" examples of members being forced to spend tons of money to defend themselves.
My concern is over the broader landscape. Who monitors Washington? The Press and themselves. The Press has been under constant attack. Non-partisan efforts to monitor Congress are now under attack.
Why does Congress not want anyone looking over their shoulders?
(01-03-2017, 11:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: I haven't checked yet today to see if PE Trump tweeted his approval or disapproval yet. He may have been too busy watching the new Celebrity Apprentice.
Trump has opposed it, but hard to tell if it is the idea or timing he opposes.
(01-03-2017, 11:51 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: With respect, I'm not sure that the "proven results" test is good at measuring government offices or agencies. For example, would we want to cut the FAA just because we haven't had an airline crash in the past few years? Sometimes, just the existence of the office or agency prevents the recurrence of the bad thing that created the situation for the formation of the office or agency. Similar to the way cops parking empty cop cars along the side of a road slows traffic down without the need for a lot of tickets.
The point of this office, as opposed to the House Ethics Committee, was that this office is to be non-partisan. The Ethics Committee is dominated by the party in power in the House. The purpose of the office is to keep the party in power from "sweeping under the rug" ethics violations because of partisanship. At the time it was created, the House was led by Democrats and this office actually empowered the Republican minority to have an equal say on ethics issues.
You start out saying "with respect", and then at no time do you address me as "Lord". I have no idea if it's good or not, bt there seem to be some complaints from both sides of the aisle that it is not non-partisan. I will add that I am not in favor of an outside group being able to levy any sort of punishment on Congressional members.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Nancy Pelosi
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
