Rigging the Rules

"A member . . . officer or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."

-- Code of Official Conduct, Rule XXIII, Clause 1.

OF ALL THE ethical rules governing the conduct of House members, this is perhaps the most critical. It has been used to discipline members for taking bribes, fixing parking tickets and having sex with House pages. It formed the basis for reprimanding former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). Perhaps most pertinent, it was the rule cited by the House ethics committee earlier this year in its serial admonishments of Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for hosting a golf fundraiser for energy lobbyists on the eve of House consideration of the energy bill; offering to endorse the political campaign of a lawmaker's son in exchange for the member's vote on the prescription drug bill; and enlisting Federal Aviation Administration officials to hunt down fleeing Texas lawmakers who were foiling his redistricting plans for his home state.

No wonder House leaders want to eviscerate it.

Doing their customary end run around the ethics committee, House leaders are proposing to rewrite the provision as part of an overhaul of House rules for the incoming Congress. A draft circulated Wednesday to Republican members says the rule will be changed so that it won't apply if a lawmaker has otherwise followed "applicable laws, regulations and rules." Under the new rule, this catch-all provision -- which has caught some pretty egregious conduct in the past -- would be riddled with holes. No matter how slimy a lawmaker's behavior, it couldn't be deemed an ethical violation unless the ethics committee could cite a specific subparagraph of a specific regulation that was breached.

This level of precise advance notice is sensible, even required, in many situations -- for example, criminal prosecutions. But it's commonplace, and appropriate, for a broader test to be applied in other settings. The canons of ethics for federal judges require that they "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," and they can be disciplined if they don't. The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides that "all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces" -- even if not specifically outlawed -- is punishable by court martial. Does the GOP conference really believe that lawmakers shouldn't be sanctioned for behavior so egregious that their own colleagues believe it fails to reflect creditably on the House?

It's not terribly surprising, of course, that the rules are being rewritten in this subtly destructive way. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) is weighing whether to oust the incumbent ethics committee chairman, Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), from his position. Last month, House Republicans changed their rules so Mr. DeLay could keep his post even if he's indicted by a Texas prosecutor. Talk about behavior that doesn't reflect creditably on the House.