Two Republicans won't join DeLay ethics probe
Ethics panel members gave money to aid his legal defense
From Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau
 | |
| |
| RELATED |
• Time.com: Jack in a box
• Bush shows support for DeLay
|
|
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two Republican members of the House ethics committee recused themselves Wednesday from any investigation of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, saying their presence on the panel could pose a potential conflict of interest because they both contributed to DeLay's legal defense fund.
Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas and Tom Cole of Oklahoma said they met with committee chairman Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington about the matter, and everyone agreed that their recusals would be in the "best interests" of the committee.
Smith said any action the committee takes regarding DeLay will "come under intense scrutiny," and he didn't want to present a distraction.
"To ensure that any decision is final and not subject to any question, I believe it will be in the best interests of all concerned to recuse myself in such a situation," he said in a written statement.
Cole said he wanted to step aside because he believes it is "important for the committee and for the House that its actions be viewed as nonpartisan and objective by the members of this institution and by the public."
"With the organization of the committee today and an impending review of the allegations made against the majority leader, I felt now was the appropriate time to make that decision public," Cole said in a written statement.
He said that in July 2004, seven months before he was assigned to the ethics committee, he contributed $5,000 from his campaign fund to DeLay's legal defense fund. Smith did not say in his statement how much money he contributed to DeLay's defense fund.
The two Republicans will remain on the committee, but won't deal with matters regarding DeLay. It was not immediately clear who would replace them on the 10-member panel, which is evenly divided among Republicans and Democrats.
Poll: Lobbyist-funded trips a problem
As Democratic and Republican lawmakers rush to amend their disclosure forms, a poll released Wednesday shows that 82 percent believe lobbyist-funded trips are a serious ethical matter.
The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll was released the same day the House ethics committee met belatedly for the first time of the year and prepared to begin a review of travel by DeLay, allegedly paid for by lobbyists.
Also Wednesday, two House Democrats introduced legislation to change lobbying rules.
The poll found the "unfavorable" rating for DeLay -- who has been under intense media scrutiny for weeks -- rose 7 points from a month ago. Although his "favorable" rating remained at 27 percent, DeLay's "unfavorable" rating rose from 31 percent to 38 percent.
Despite the change, the poll showed that more than half of those who responded believed that "generally speaking," both Republicans and Democrats in Congress act ethically.
Lobbyist-funded trips are a "very serious" matter to 46 percent of respondents and a "moderately serious" issue to 36 percent, according to the poll of 1,006 adult Americans. The poll, taken April 29-May 1, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Last week, the House reversed GOP-written rules that had caused Democrats to shut down the panel. (Full story)
DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert said they hope the committee -- which recently got a 40 percent budget increase -- will hire additional staff so privately funded trips can be reviewed before lawmakers accept them.
Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said confusion about the rules has led many lawmakers to correct the disclosure forms they file in the House.
"I also think there has to be real guidance," Hastert said. "So they can rule and tell people and give them guidance before they take a trip about what's right and what's acceptable."
DeLay, who has limited his public appearances in recent weeks, ventured in front of cameras at a news conference to laud the GOP's high-technology policy agenda. But when he slipped out before the question-and-answer session, reporters chased him through the crowded halls of the Capitol back to his office.
'By the book'
Later, in an off-camera session with reporters, DeLay was asked if his staff's internal review of all his past privately funded travel has revealed any problems.
"No, they have not uncovered any problems," the Texas Republican said. "Unlike the way it's being reported, we did everything by the book."
Regardless, DeLay said he would give his results to the ethics committee, not the public.
"You've seen all the material we're putting together. I mean, we've answered just about every question that's ever been asked of us," he said.
Nevertheless, the dispute has raised issues about congressional travel that "need to be looked into," DeLay acknowledged.
"I would prefer, for instance, that the ethics committee set up a process by which a member can go to them and submit a proposed invitation on a trip, be it foreign or domestic," he said. "Then, everyone would know what is proper and what is not."
The proposed lobbying legislation -- unveiled by Massachusetts Rep. Marty Meehan and Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who heads the House Democrats' campaign committee -- would require private organizations that pay for members' travel to certify that the funding meets House rules.
It also aims to make it easier for the public to figure out which lobbyists are trying to influence which members, making disclosure documents available in a searchable form on the Internet.
It would also require a former lawmaker or high-ranking staffer to wait two years -- instead of the current one year -- before lobbying former colleagues.
"The relationship between Congress and K Street has gotten too close and too cozy," Meehan said, referring to the lobbying industry. "The opportunity for reform is now."
DeLay said he would not support the legislation, dismissing the two Democrats as "carrying the water" of "leftists groups."
Hastert, Meehan and Emanuel were asked Wednesday -- and DeLay was asked last week -- if privately funded travel should be banned altogether to remove any appearance of undue influence by private groups or lobbyists.
Each said no, explaining that some private travel is appropriate.
