Ethical Freeze

IT WAS A MEASURE of how far House Republican leaders overreached in trying to eviscerate their ethics rules that their own, normally compliant members refused to go along with the gutting. In a surprise move Monday night, the besieged leadership reversed the rule change that would have let Majority Leader Tom DeLay keep his post even if indicted by a Texas grand jury investigating his campaign finance operation. In a move that was more obscure, but also more important, the leaders withdrew a proposed change that would have removed a critical provision requiring members to conduct themselves in a way "that shall reflect creditably on the House." The leadership wanted to change that language in a way that sounded reasonable -- adding the phrase, "by abiding by all relevant laws, regulations and rules" -- but that would in fact would have grossly undermined its effectiveness.

Good for the rank and file, whose threatened revolt derailed this dismantling. The brave and, for that reason, probably soon-to-be-former chairman of the ethics committee, Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), also deserves praise for his timely statement opposing the change. "This is not the way to effect meaningful reform," Mr. Hefley said. "Ethics reform must be bipartisan, and this package is not bipartisan." It's a sign of the times that this mild, self-evident statement was seen as revolutionary.

But Monday night's news was not uniformly good, nor is it likely to be the end of the leadership's ethics mischief. First, Mr. Hefley seems about to be removed from his post on the bogus, hurriedly trumped-up grounds that House rules prevent him from serving an additional term. They don't. Mr. Hefley's replacement by another, presumably more tractable, chairman could be combined with another change in the rules -- formally adopted by the House yesterday -- to effectively freeze a process that wasn't robust to begin with.

The rules change -- magnificently mislabeled the "restore presumption of innocence" provision -- would require that an ethics complaint be dropped unless there is bipartisan agreement to proceed. "Presumption of indolence" might be a more appropriate term. Under the previous rules, if the chairman and ranking member couldn't agree on how to handle a complaint, it would be assigned to an investigative subcommittee or it would at least linger on the committee agenda. Now the complaint would be dismissed.

This change is as unnecessary as it is unwise. It's not as if the ethics committee has been inundated with complaints. House rules bar filings from outside groups; only a member can file a complaint, and the committee ominously warned lawmakers last year that they make such accusations at the risk of being hauled up on ethics charges themselves. Moreover, unlike other House panels, the ethics committee contains equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, so ultimately no action is taken without some bipartisan agreement. Insisting on such agreement before an investigation can even begin, however, is a recipe for inactivity. Which may be precisely why the House leadership cooked it up in the first place.