House GOP reverses ethics stance

WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders last night abruptly abandoned plans to loosen some ethics regulations for members and reinstated a requirement that indicted members step down from leadership posts.

However, the leaders, meeting behind closed doors, proposed one ethics change that could make it easier for one party to block an Ethics Committee investigation of a House member.

That proposal would require a majority vote of the Ethics Committee -- divided equally with five Democrats and five Republicans -- to begin an investigation. Under the current system, an inquiry begins automatically if the two top committee leaders take no action on a complaint after 45 days.

The decisions by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois and his leadership team could have the biggest impact on majority leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican whose fund-raising activities are being investigated by a grand jury.

House Republican leaders were facing increasing anger from Democrats and moderate Republicans over the proposals to weaken ethics rules, and DeLay and Hastert jointly decided to limit the proposed changes.

Jonathan Grella, a spokesman for DeLay, said the majority leader continued to believe that it was legitimate to allow a House leader to retain his post while under indictment. But Grella said that by reinstating the rule that could require him to step aside, DeLay was ''denying the Democrats their lone issue. Anything that could undermine our agenda needs to be nipped in the bud."

In November, after a Texas grand jury indicted three fund-raisers with ties to DeLay on accusations of campaign-finance irregularities, House Republicans repealed a rule that would have forced DeLay to step down if he were indicted.

Early yesterday, House leaders were seeking to further weaken ethics guidelines. If successful, critics said, the Ethics Committee would have been prevented from being able to mount any real investigation.

One change would have allowed ethics complaints to proceed only if the conduct in question is specifically forbidden in House rules. Current rules allow investigations of any actions that do not ''reflect creditably on the House."

The other proposed change dealt with the majority vote to start an investigation. Currently, a vote of half of the committee can set a probe in motion.

That proposal, and reinstatement of the rule on indicted members, was scheduled to go before the full House today.

The early efforts by Hastert and his team to adopt the broader changes were criticized by the chairman of the House Ethics Committee, Republican Joel Hefley of Colorado.

''This is not the way to effect meaningful reform," Hefley wrote in a statement issued last night. ''Ethics reform must be bipartisan, and this package is not bipartisan."

Even before he challenged his party's leadership, Hefley had been targeted to be replaced as head of the Ethics Committee. Hastert and his allies contend a term limit provision within House rules necessitates the removal of Hefley, and they sought to replace him with Representative Lamar S. Smith, a close DeLay ally and fellow Texan. Supporters of Hefley contend he is being targeted because his committee twice issued formal rebukes of DeLay in October, moves that angered and frustrated Republican House leaders.

A final decision on Hefley is expected tomorrow. Hefley had no comment yesterday beyond his written statement.

Democrats had pounced on Hefley's defection, saying it shows why the ethics rules should be kept intact. Democrats and government watchdog groups were warning that the proposed changes would effectively shut down ethics investigations in the House.

''Change happens when one person is willing to stand up to the status quo, and this will increase pressure on those Republican members who are more independent-minded," said Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat who has proposed stricter ethics standards for House members.

''I don't think anybody can say with a straight face that the existing ethics rules are too strict. Republicans . . . are showing that they lack any responsibility for stewardship of the institution."

The proposals followed the ethics rebukes of DeLay and continued investigations into his fund-raising activities and his role in the controversial redistricting conducted in his home state of Texas. Watchdog groups said the changes would have allowed either party to shield its members by deadlocking the committee and would have left unsavory actions unpunished unless they were specifically cited in internal rules.

''They will turn a dysfunctional ethics system into a virtually nonfunctioning ethics system," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a nonpartisan advocacy group in Washington. ''This travesty must not succeed."

John Feehery, a spokesman for Hastert, said the speaker thinks the current system encourages partisanship because it allows investigations to be launched too easily.

Hastert still believes a change ''would have been the right thing to do, but it was becoming a distraction," Feehery said after the leaders changed course.

Representative Mark Kirk, a Republican from Illinois, said: ''It's a mark of a leader to take a bullet for the team and not for the team to take a bullet for the leader. I'm very glad we decided to stick with the rules."

Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, said Republicans pulled back on the discipline rule because ''the issue simply became too hot for them to handle."

Material from the Associated Press was used in this report. Rick Klein can be reached at rklein@globe.com.