GOP caves in on (lack of) Ethics Rules

[JohnnyMarzetti]

House Speaker Leads G.O.P. Retreat on Ethics Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: April 27, 2005

Filed at 12:10 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert, leading a Republican retreat, said Wednesday he stands ready to scrap controversial new ethics rules, possibly by day's end.

''I'm willing to step back,'' Hastert told reporters after a closed-door meeting with members of the GOP rank and file.

Later, in a brief Capitol interview, he said he expected the full House to vote on reversing the rules. Asked whether that would take place later in the day, he replied, ''I hope so.''

Democrats charge that rules changes pushed through the House by Republicans earlier this year were designed to shelter Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and have stopped the ethics committee from conducting business in retaliation. The powerful Texan was admonished by the panel three times last year and faces scrutiny this year over overseas travel. He has denied any wrongdoing.

It was not immediately clear whether Hastert's concessions would satisfy Democrats.

Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the ethics committee, said, ''To this point the speaker's actions have been positive. The proposal will be considered and evaluated by the bipartisan yardstick.''

At the same time, Mollohan as well as aides to Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi noted that Republicans had fired two holdover staff members unilaterally. They said they wanted any new staff to be hired by bipartisan agreement.

Hastert bristled at talk of Democrats dictating committee staffing. ''If they get one thing, they'll want another,'' he told The Associated Press.

''We raised their staffing. They have the ability to hire more staff,'' he added, referring to a large increase in the committee's budget.

The speaker drew little dissent from members of his rank and file at the closed-door meeting where he outlined his intentions.

Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., said the speaker told fellow Republicans it was important to resolve the ethics committee deadlock because it was becoming a distraction for the party at a time when it is attempting to accomplish its legislative goals.

He praised Hastert for being willing to ''pivot'' on the issue.

Pelosi told reporters that Republicans had decided to retreat under pressure. ''I think they just took the heat,'' she said. ''I think there has been an editorial in every paper in the country saying this is wrong.''

Republicans have heatedly denied that the rules changes were designed with DeLay in mind, and Hastert told reporters outside the meeting Wednesday that his intention had been to create a new set of rules that was fair to all lawmakers, regardless of party. Given Democratic criticism, he said, ''I'm willing to step back.''

''We need to move forward with an ethics process,'' he added.

Referring to DeLay, Hastert said that one prominent Republican needed a functioning ethics committee because ''right now he can't clear his name.''

DeLay, admonished by the ethics committee three times last year, faces new scrutiny. He has denied wrongdoing in the face of questions surrounding trips that he took overseas. DeLay also has said that he is eager to appear and answer questions before the chairman and senior Democrat on the ethics panel.

Despite the retreat, it was not immediately clear whether Hastert's actions would end the deadlock that has stymied the committee's work.

In a letter to the speaker dated April 12 but kept private, Pelosi also called on the Illinois Republican to urge Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., the panel's chairman, to abandon plans to name his chief as staff director for the committee.

''I cannot imagine a staffing arrangement more damaging to the nonpartisan character of the committee,'' she wrote in the letter.

Republicans had said before the meeting that the GOP leadership was considering a plan to allow the entire House to vote on reverting to the old rules. It was also possible that Hastert would decide to allow individual votes on each of the three changes that Democrats objected to.

The most controversial of the three rules changes created a system under which an ethics complaint would automatically be dismissed unless a majority of the panel voted to act on it within 45 days. Under the old rule, a complaint would automatically trigger an investigation unless the panel voted to dismiss it within 45 days.

Republicans said the old rule created an environment in which lawmakers who were falsely accused could not be exonerated without a bipartisan vote of the committee. But Democrats said the new rules made it easy for Republicans to bury complaints against DeLay.

The committee has 10 members, five from each party, meaning that neither side can provide a majority on its own.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...Committee.html

--talk about egg on your face.

[Nbadan]

[The Ressurrected One]

The outcome is yet to be known but, calling this "caving" might be a little premature.

After all, it comes on the heels of overt support from President Bush.

In my mind, the Republicans are rescinding the ethics changes because 1) they know DeLay can prevail and 2) it removes protections from all the Democrats who've been busily cooking their travel account books and gratuity records since DeLay's troubles surfaced.

We'll see...I could be wrong...however, the Democrats have misunderestimated before.

[NameDropper]

They "caved".

[The Ressurrected One]

They "caved".

Only time will tell. Let's see who remains in the Legislature after the smoke has dissipated and the dust settled.

If DeLay still stands, I was right. If not, you.

[The Ressurrected One]

GOP warns Democrats they'll face probes, too

Like I said...

[GoldToe]

As is it should be.

[ChumpDumper]

The Republican warnings came a day after House GOP leaders, under intense pressure from Democrats and falling support in public opinion polls, made a rare policy reversal and grudgingly scrapped ethics rules they had pushed through the House only a few months ago.

Do they plan on retaliating against the public too?

[The Ressurrected One]

Do they plan on retaliating against the public too?

It would seem the reporter would like you to think that...hmmm. And, surprise, surprise, you do.

Personally, I think it's been a Republican ruse from the beginning...get a bunch of fat cat unethical Democrats to start screaming over preferential treatment for a Republican colleague and then say, "you're right...that was the wrong thing to do..."

It's equally amusing that the reversal came on the heels of a few stories chronicling how legislators were running to cover their butts on ethics issues.

Crazy like a fox if you ask me.

[ChumpDumper]

It would seem the reporter would like you to think that...hmmm. And, surprise, surprise, you do.

It was a question, you idiot.

Personally, I think it's been a Republican ruse from the beginning...get a bunch of fat cat unethical Democrats to start screaming over preferential treatment for a Republican colleague and then say, "you're right...that was the wrong thing to do..."

It was a Republican miscalculation - they thought they could get away with changing the rules that they put in place to protect their boy. Now they're throwing a tantrum because they know DeLay will be in hot water -- they wouldn't have changed the rules in the first place if they knew DeLay was clean.

Crazy like a fox if you ask me.

Angry and scared.

[The Ressurrected One]

It was a question, you idiot.

A stupid, leading question that reveals you bias.

It was a Republican miscalculation - they thought they could get away with changing the rules that they put in place to protect their boy. Now they're throwing a tantrum because they know DeLay will be in hot water -- they wouldn't have changed the rules in the first place if they knew DeLay was clean.Angry and scared.

That's your opinion. I don't think so...

I'm betting DeLay comes out of this vindicated and more than a couple of Democrats pack their bags.

In for a penny, in for a pound. If, down the road, I'm wrong -- pull up this post and remind me. I can admit it.

[ChumpDumper]

A stupid, leading question that reveals you bias.

Hey, they're the ones retaliating aren't they?

That's your opinion.

No. That's a fact -- the Republicans changed the ethics rules THEY PUT IN PLACE in order to keep DeLay in his position of power even if he was indicted by a grand jury. Fact.

I'm betting DeLay comes out of this vindicated and more than a couple of Democrats pack their bags.

I bet a couple of charges are made against members of both parties and nothing at all comes of it. You labor under the false assumption that I think the Democrats are any better.

[The Ressurrected One]

Hey, they're the ones retaliating aren't they?

Not the way I see it. They're just reminding the opposition that they're teeth-gnashing over the rule change has caused them to reverse and that that now means they, too, are subject to ethics investigations.

I'm thinking the Democrats didn't believe the Republicans would reverse. Brilliant, if you ask me. Particularly if DeLay is exonerated.

No. That's a fact -- the Republicans changed the ethics rules THEY PUT IN PLACE in order to keep DeLay in his position of power even if he was indicted by a grand jury.

That only holds up if, in fact, DeLay is now indicted or found to have violated ethics rules.

Fact.I bet a couple of charges are made against members of both parties and nothing at all comes of it. You labor under the false assumption that I think the Democrats are any better.

We'll see. But, it does neither of us any good to argue over something for which there is no way to see the outcome.

But, just so we can calculate the score later. If DeLay stays and any Democrats are busted, I'm right. If DeLay goes and no Democrats are busted or, if no one gets busted, you're right.

I can accept that. Can we quit now?

[ChumpDumper]

Not the way I see it.

Funny, because several Republican congressmen see it that way, Pollyanna.

That only holds up if, in fact, DeLay is now indicted or found to have violated ethics rules

No, they already changed the rules about indictment, changed them back and now just changed another rule that effectively requires a Republican vote for the ethics committee to even launch an investigation on DeLay's actions. These are facts. They need nothing to hold them up.

We'll see. But, it does neither of us any good to argue over something for which there is no way to see the outcome.

All this maneuvering has happened precisely because they can see the outcome.

If DeLay stays and any Democrats are busted, I'm right. If DeLay goes and no Democrats are busted or, if no one gets busted, you're right.

If you're wrong, we won't hear a peep out of you. Did you come up with a reason for Bush's last fuel oil shipment to North Korea yet?

[The Ressurrected One]

Funny, because several Republican congressmen see it that way, Pollyanna.No, they already changed the rules about indictment, changed them back and now just changed another rule that effectively requires a Republican vote for the ethics committee to even launch an investigation on DeLay's actions. These are facts. They need nothing to hold them up.All this maneuvering has happened precisely because they can see the outcome.If you're wrong, we won't hear a peep out of you. Did you come up with a reason for Bush's last fuel oil shipment to North Korea yet?

Okay...

[ChumpDumper]

Okay...

I'll take that as a "no."

I gave you the links and a month to come up with something. Feel free to link to your response if I missed it.

[The Ressurrected One]

I'll take that as a "no."

I gave you the links and a month to come up with something. Feel free to link to your response if I missed it.

You didn't miss it. I haven't taken an interest in the controversy, as, apparently has no one else...

Can you clarify your upset for me?

Specifically. Under what "ruse" are you suggesting Bush is sending fuel to North Korea while thumbing his nose at the world?

No, I'm not going back and re-reading your posts...

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't taken an interest in the controversy

LMAO! You sure did when you demanded the links and said you were going to read up it and get back to me.

Can you clarify your upset for me?

Specifically. Under what "ruse" are you suggesting Bush is sending fuel to North Korea while thumbing his nose at the world?

LMAO again. I said it didn't make any sense after he declared the agreement to ship the oil null and void.

No, I'm not going back and re-reading your posts...

Go back and re-read yours then. And don't argue with me for pages and demand links if you have no interest.

[The Ressurrected One]

LMAO! You sure did when you demanded the links and said you were going to read up it and get back to me.LMAO again. I said it didn't make any sense after he declared the agreement to ship the oil null and void.Go back and re-read yours then. And don't argue with me for pages and demand links if you have no interest.

You have my word. I'll never do it again.

[The Ressurrected One]

Seems to me we've continued the shipments of fuel oil for humanitarian reasons. As in Iraq, the United States has no qualm with the average North Korean citizen. There's no reason to withhold a product that can only be used for power generation and heating simply because they they have a crazed dictator at the helm.

I get this impression from a google search in the matter --

Q: Can North Korea use this fuel out of the North Hamgyong Province? Do you have any agreement? They can use in another place, another province or another --

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I do not hold myself out as an expert on the North Korean power grid and how it's integrated. You'd have to get that from --

Q: No regulations on North Korean side to --

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Well, the North Koreans are obligated to use it for power generation, and by its nature it is not good for much except power generation, heating oil, as well. That it will be used for thermal heat, but as to how the grid works, I'm not sure I know.

Q: Which oil-producing companies have agreed to join the consortium or at least provide some of the fuel oil?

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: While those negotiations are still going on, I'd rather not comment on the details.

From here.

Looks to be from 1995 or thereabouts...

[ChumpDumper]

Bush was President in 1995?

There's no reason to withhold a product that can only be used for power generation and heating simply because they they have a crazed dictator at the helm.

So you oppose Bush's withdrawl from the agreed framework.

Keep on Googling.

[The Ressurrected One]

There's this. The oil is shipped under the au es of KEDO. It seems to indicate we are opposed to the shipments continuing, but that we're only one member of an organization that is approving them.

What's your point, really? If the oil is used for humanitarian reasons and is not suitable for much else. What's the deal?

So, Clinton and Carter bear no responsibility for Korean nukes? Especially when Kim Jung Il admits they continued the program unabated right after the door closed behing Jimmy Carter?

I'm not sure what you believe these oil shipments have to do with failed Bush policy toward North Korea. How did it contribute to NK having a nuke program prior to his taking office or to them continuing the nuke program, until the Bush administration called them on it, after he took office.

I see this as yet another deflection of blame from Clinton to Bush. Kind of like Enron where Clinton allowed the scandal to fester under his administration while Bush prosecuted them when he took over.

Seriously, I don't get it...

North Korea: KEDO to Ship Fuel Oil

The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization is expected to send a shipment of fuel oil to North Korea today in accordance with the 1994 Agreed Framework under which North Korea promised to conduct no nuclear weapon activities in exchange for receiving two nuclear power plants and fuel oil, among other things (see GSN, Nov. 4).

North Korean officials last month acknowledged that the country has maintained a nuclear programs in violation of the 1994 agreement (see GSN, Oct. 17).

A tanker loaded with 46,800 tons of heavy fuel oil is expected to leave Singapore today and arrive in North Korea 10 to 12 days later, according to the New York Times. The United States, which is a member of the KEDO executive board, opposes the fuel oil shipment, but has been unable to persuade other board members — South Korea, Japan and the European Union — to agree, officials said.

“KEDO works on consensus basis,” an official with the organization said. “The U.S. alone can’t make this decision.”

The KEDO executive board is scheduled to meet in New York within two weeks, which would give it time to order the tanker to turn around before unloading the fuel, the Times reported (James Dao, New York Times, Nov. 5).

Meanwhile, former U.S. ambassador to South Korea Donald Gregg arrived in Seoul today after a four-day trip to North Korea (see GSN, Nov. 1; Korea Times, Nov. 6).

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues..._7_nucw.html#5

[The Ressurrected One]

Bush was President in 1995?

Exactly...

So you oppose Bush's withdrawl from the agreed framework.

There was no agreed framework. It was a Jimmy Carter fantasy...North Korea never intended to keep their side of the agreement.

Keep on Googling.

As long as the argument is interesting, I will...

Quite frankly, I don't see any smoke here and you've not said what you believe the big scandal to be...The U.S. has continued to send humanitarian and life sustaining supplies to many countries with which we are in confrontation.

[ChumpDumper]

There was no agreed framework.

Of course there was. Neither side followed it. That has contributed to the problems we're facing today.

Quite frankly, I don't see any smoke here and you've not said what you believe the big scandal to be.

There is not a scandal, there is ambiguity. I know all you want to do is hold Bush blameless, but he has his share of responsibility for the impasse in Korea.

The oil is shipped under the au es of KEDO.

It was our oil.

[The Ressurrected One]

There is not a scandal, there is ambiguity.

Okay, then I'm comfortable with the belief there are things involved about which you and I cannot know.

Glad to hear you don't find it scandalous...just ambiguous. And you dredged this back up?