posted October 22, 2004 11:14 PM
http://www.house.gov/ethics/DeLay_memo.htm MEMORANDUM TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
FROM: s/Joel Hefley, Chairman
s/Alan B. Mollohan, Ranking Minority Member
SUBJECT: Recommendations for disposition of the complaint filed against Representative DeLay
http://democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC= {A8B4DE06-6CC2-419D-8A26-B5870F580B57}&DE={09C772EA-ED3F-4343-8D24-98DBD66D2E57}
A RECIDIVIST: FIVE STRIKES & LONG PAST OUT; The House Ethics Committee Case Against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
A RECIDIVIST: FIVE STRIKES & LONG PAST OUT
The House Ethics Committee Case Against
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
Democracy 21 today released a report titled, "A Recidivist: Five Strikes & Long Past Out," which cites five separate instances in which House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has drawn fire from the House Ethics Committee -- beginning in November, 1997.
The Democracy 21 report excerpts findings and conclusions regarding Representative DeLay by the House Ethics Committee, which is made up of an equal number of House Republicans and Democrats. There is nothing to indicate that any of the House Republicans on the Committee took exception to any of the Committee's findings and conclusions.
The five matters addressed in the Democracy 21 report do not include the ongoing criminal investigation in Texas of the activities of TRMPAC, a political action committee closely tied to Representative DeLay. This criminal investigation, to date, has brought indictments against three associates of Representative DeLay, including one of his closest political aides. The House Ethics Committee has deferred action on an ethics complaint against DeLay regarding his activities with TRMPAC, pending resolution of the criminal matter.
"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has received a warning, a private rebuke, and three public admonishments about his ethical conduct in five separate Ethics Committee actions," Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer said. "This is a classic case of ethical recidivism, made all the worse by Representative DeLay's persistent refusal to recognize he has done anything wrong and his repeated efforts to attribute all of his 'problems' to partisan attacks against him."
"Representative DeLay's claims of 'partisanship' simply ignore the fact that all of the findings of improper conduct against him have been made by Republicans as well as Democrats on the House Ethics Committee," Wertheimer stated.
In a statement issued on October 6, 2004, Representative DeLay praised the House Ethics Committee for doing "the right thing" in "dismissing" the ethics complaint filed against him by Representative Chris Bell. He noted that the "attacks" on his ethics that have been "hurled" against him for years "all have fallen short...because of insufficient merit."
"Not exactly," said Wertheimer.
The 38-page report of the Ethics Committee released on October 6 details two separate instances in which DeLay was found to have engaged in improper conduct, and for which the Committee determined that a letter admonishing DeLay was appropriate.
These two admonishments followed by only one week a separate admonishment of DeLay by the Ethics Committee for his actions last year in pressuring a colleague to vote for the Medicare reform bill.
The October 6 letter of admonishment by the Ethics Committee also refers to a separate "confidential Committee letter to you of May 7, 1999," on an undisclosed matter. According to reports published at the time, this letter was "a rare private rebuke" of DeLay "for badgering a lobbying organization over its hiring of a Democrat as its president." (The New York Times, May 14, 1999). Published reports stated that DeLay had threatened an industry trade group with "retaliation" for hiring a Democrat. (The Washington Post, May 14, 1999).
And these ethical transgressions all came after the Ethics Committee sent an earlier letter to DeLay, dated November 7, 1997, that, as described in the October 6 letter, "concerned, in part, statements that may create the impression that official access or action are linked with campaign contributions...."
According to a statement issued by the Committee in 1997, DeLay was "advised" that it is "particularly important" a Member not make statements that create the impression that the Member would "consider an individual's requests for access or for official action based on...campaign contributions." In the October 6 letter, the Committee noted that its 1997 warning to DeLay is "pertinent" here because his recent actions in regard to the energy industry fundraiser "raise the very same concern expressed in that earlier Committee statement."
"DeLay's record as an ethics recidivist was specifically noted by the Ethics Committee in its October 6 letter of admonishment which 'remind[ed]' DeLay that it has jurisdiction to deal not only with acts of ethical violations, but also with an 'accumulation of acts' that are 'severe enough to reflect discredit on the Congress,'" Wertheimer stated.
In its October 6 letter to DeLay, the Ethics Committee took note of "the number of instances to date in which the Committee has found it necessary to comment on conduct in which you have engaged," and warned DeLay that "it is clearly necessary for you to temper your future actions" to assure compliance with the House ethics rules.
The Ethics Committee noted in the October 6 letter that DeLay has defended his behavior simply as an effort to advance his party's legislative agenda. But the Committee said:
Your actions that are addressed in this letter, as well as those addressed in the Committee's decision of last week and in prior Committee actions, are all ones that, in a broad sense, were directed to the advancement of your legislative agenda. Those actions are also ones that your peers who sit on this Committee determined, after careful consideration, went beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct. (emphasis added).
In repeatedly admonishing DeLay, the Ethics Committee has relied on the broad standard of conduct in the House rules that requires every House Member to "conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House." (Rule 23, cl. 1.) The Committee noted in its October 6 letter to DeLay that it is "particularly important that members of the House leadership, who are the most publicly visible Members, adhere to this requirement scrupulously."
Last week, House Ethics Committee chairman Joel Hefley, a Republican, stated that Republican lawmakers "have threatened him" in the wake of the Ethics Committee's actions. According to an October 13 report in The Hill, Hefley said "I've been attacked; I've been threatened."
According to Wertheimer, "Rather than attempting to 'shoot the Republican messenger,' it's time for House Republicans to recognize that Representative DeLay's repeated acts of ethical wrongdoing have discredited the office of Majority Leader, House Republicans and the House of Representatives. It's time for House Republicans to replace Representative DeLay as a member of their elected leadership."