A welcome turnaround on the Office of Congressional Ethics

HOUSE REPUBLICANS have made a wise decision in opting to retain the independent, and seemingly endangered,Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The entity was set up in 2008, after Democrats retook control of the House, as an important adjunct to the often dysfunctional ethics committee. The existing arrangement is not perfect - for one thing, the OCE lacks the subpoena power needed to do its job most effectively. But the proof of the office's usefulness is in the howls it produced from lawmakers who felt its sting.

The OCE's existence means that members are not left to police themselves. The office has the power, without having a lawmaker file an ethics complaint, to initiate investigations and conduct preliminary reviews. In addition, it brings some transparency to the black hole of the congressional ethics process; if the OCE refers a matter to the ethics committee for further action, the committee is required to make a public statement, within a relatively short time frame, about whether it will proceed.

During its short existence, the OCE has conducted 69 inquiries and forwarded 21 to the ethics panel for further review, according to its latest report. Its work led to the admonishment of Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) for taking a corporate-paid trip to the Caribbean; ethics committee proceedings against Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) for helping a bank with which she had personal connections; and referral to the Justice Department for further investigation of the activities of a campaign cash-for-earmarks operation by the now-defunct lobbying firm PMA Group.

The future of the office was in peril no matter which party held the majority in the 112th Congress. This year, 20 members of the Congressional Black Caucus introduced a resolution that would have gutted the OCE's powers, including prohibiting it from initiating inquiries without a sworn complaint filed by someone with personal knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing and barring release of investigative reports. Republicans were no fans, either. Arguing against the OCE's creation, incoming Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said, "We don't need a new layer of bureaucracy to stand between those who break the rules and those who must enforce them."

That layer of bureaucracy has proved particularly effective - even if the ethics committee too often dropped a ball passed by the OCE. Meanwhile, the ethics committee is embroiled in a particularly ugly internal scandal, with charges and countercharges being flung between Democratic and Republican members and staff, the resignation of the panel's chief counsel and the suspension of two investigators. Whether Mr. Boehner has changed his mind about the OCE or was simply choosing not to pick a fight over ethics, the new Republican majority is to be commended for its decision to keep this useful watchdog. But the OCE can be effective only as part of a larger ethics process. Now the challenge is to restore some level of functionality to the ethics committee itself.