|
More House ethics confusion reigns, this time on earmarks |
|
By Jackie Kucinich
|
|
Posted: 03/19/07 06:44 PM [ET] |
The two top members of the House ethics committee have circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter asking for guidance on a provision of the Democratic ethics package that has recently caused confusion in both parties.
Signed by Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and ranking member Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the letter asks for “input regarding a matter that is currently under consideration of this committee.” It was copied to all chairmen and ranking members.
The letter cites in particular a new provision requiring members to register their earmarks and certify that neither they nor their spouses have a “financial interest” in the provision.
The letter said that the ethics panel is considering how to define the term “request” and noted that the Rules Committee of the last Congress chose to defer to the incoming committee chairmen on the matter.
On Thursday, a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Nadeam Elshami, said that the Speaker expects the ethics committee to provide guidance later today.
The Jones-Hastings letter is a response to another query, dated Feb. 28, by Rules Committee ranking member David Dreier (R-Calif.) and seven other ranking members who requested clarification on the matter.
Dreier spokeswoman Alissa Do said the congressman is “pleased to see the ethics committee taking this issue seriously,” but added that “they are still waiting for guidance.” She added that Dreier had hoped guidance would have come sooner.
This is the second time this month that confusion has erupted over the House ethics package, which Congress passed in the first 100 hours of the session.
Earlier in March, Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) clashed over the rules governing travel. Last Friday, the ethics committee tried to settle the matter by issuing guidelines on privately funded travel and explained that, under certain circumstances, some groups may still fund travel for lawmakers.
But further confusion has spread regarding earmarks. Republican legislative directors frantically exchanged e-mails last week as they sought guidance over a rule stipulating what a “financial interest” in an earmark was. Earmarks requests had to be filed by last Friday.
At least three members have decided against filing their earmarks altogether because of lack of clarity on the rules, and they signed a letter to Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) articulating their position.
One of them, Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), said yesterday that he has decided against filing any earmarks because of the “ethical uncertainty of any earmark defining personal financial interest.”
For example, said Terry, current language could define a provision for sewer improvement as an earmark if it was done on property near the member’s home. Current rules could classify that as personal gain on a lawmaker’s property if the values increase as a result of better sewer management.
“There is so much uncertainty no matter how pure and emeritus an earmark may be,” Terry said.
Freshman Reps. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) and Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) also have opted not to file earmarks for fear of ethical pitfalls, according to their spokesmen.
GOP staff condemned the absence of guidance as the deadline for earmark submissions drew near on Friday afternoon.
“The unbelievable and amateurish lack of forethought in developing a straightforward system that meets the ethics requirements has driven us to repeatedly slam our heads into our desks,” said one Republican staffer.
A Democratic aide countered, “Republicans are void of ideas, and they are nit-picking.”
Appropriations Committee ranking member Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) has also asked for clarification. He sent a letter to Obey on March 15 asking for help defining the term “request.” Lewis also asked for a two- to three-week extension of the deadline for subcommittee chairmen and staff.
“I don’t believe a delay of two or three weeks will in any way hinder their ability to meet markup deadlines that may soon be set for them,” Lewis said in the letter. |
