The House Ethics Committee is responsible for investigating and making recommendations on the enforcement of House ethics rules. In an nod towards transparency, its reports and statements are published online -- but they are virtually unusable. The Committee publishes documents in an unsearchable PDF format, spreads them out over of 24 pages, and gives them impenetrable titles like "Statement of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member." Search engines (like Google) cannot see the documents, and only the most patient will click on each link to see what's inside.

We've taken all 120+ documents, made them searchable, and published them online in a database. Now every document from December 1998 until July 2011 can be searched -- at once. It's easy to find the 20 documents that refer to Rep. Rangel, or the 15 documents that refer to (former) Rep. DeLay, or anything else that you're looking for. The web tool DocumentCloud has made this all possible.

The search isn't perfect, of course. We had to use optical character recognition technology to transform the PDF into a searchable format, so there's a number of transcription errors. It would be better if the committee posted the documents in a searchable format, or even better, in an open format. The committee should also publish an index that links to all relevant documents for each matter, and include a description for each document of what it contains. Until then, our House Ethics Committee search tool will be an invaluable tool for anyone monitoring the House Ethics process.

We'd be remiss if we didn't give the House Ethics Committee kudos for at least publishing these documents online. One look at the Senate Ethics Committee website makes clear that things could be much worse.

 

Moments ago, the House of Representatives defeated an amendment by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) to slash 40% of the funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics, the House's independent ethics watchdog. However, more than a hundred congressman -- including 73 Republicans and 29 Democrats -- voted to weaken the agency -- with many more changing their vote before the final count was tallied. The amendment was offered to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, which is expected to pass the House later today.

Today's attempt to reduce funding for OCE, combined with previous efforts to eliminate the agency, may be an example of a not-too-subtle message from certain members of Congress that the agency should refrain from being too vigorous in its investigations. In other words, OCE is having an effect in deterring and identifying misconduct. That's all the more reason to strengthen the agency.

OCE provides some much-needed transparency to the ethics process, and gives members of the public the opportunity to suggest matters for consideration. It is also intended as a palliative to the often politicized House Ethics Committee and the cloud of controversy that often follows the Ethics Committee's actions.

The Office of Congressional Ethics was created after a number of scandals to provide an independent, nonpartisan review of allegations of misconduct against Members, offices, and staff. It should be strengthened, with more funding and enhanced powers.

Update #2: We'll shortly publish a blogpost exploring connections between Members investigated by OCE and Members votes on cuts to OCE

Update #1: here's the roll call vote (from the House)

Final Vote Results for Roll Call 622

The House Ethics Committee has retained outside counsel to assist it with its inquiry into Representative Maxine Waters, according to a statement today. An investigative subcommittee concluded in June 2010 that there is "substantial reason to believe" that Rep. Waters inappropriately sought federal funding to bail out a bank in which her husband had a substantial financial interest. Since then, the committee's investigation has come under fire, with charges that staff engaged in a number of improper activities.

The committee is attempting to dig itself out of trouble by hiring Dorsey and Whitney attorney Billy Martin to review the allegations about the Committee's own conduct, and then (if appropriate) assist the committee with its review of the allegations against Rep. Waters. Mr. Martin has represented scandal-clad clients such as Monica Lewinsky, former Atlanta mayor Bill Campbell, Larry Craig, and a number of sports celebrities including Michael Vick, Allen Iverson, and Riddick Bowe.

The appointment of Martin meets one of the two steps necessary to reform the ethics process that was identified today in Roll Call today by AEI's Norm Ornstein. In addition to appointing special counsel, he argues that  "it is time to revisit the OCE [Office of Congressional Ethics] and consider strengthening its role."

We agree. The Office of Congressional Ethics is the independent body charged by the House of Representatives with investigating ethics complaints against Members of the House of Representatives or their staff. Its recommendations are sent to the House Ethics Committee, which is made up of Members of Congress, who are responsible for engaging in further investigations and recommending punishment.

Sunlight has previously suggested strengthening disclosure surrounding the ethics process, and the Office of Congressional Ethics specifically, in our recommendations for updating the House's Rules for the 112th Congress.

At the time we wrote:

The reforms from the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act should be expanded and strengthened, and the role of public oversight and transparency needs to be put back to the center of congressional ethics. In particular, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) should have its budget doubled, at a minimum.

Also, the public ethics filings on which the OCE relies on should be affirmatively posted online without restrictions.

Additionally, there are several other changes in how these bodies should function:

• Meetings of the House Ethics Committee should be open to the public unless it pertains to specific allegations against an individual member. This recommendation would not change the requirement that investigatory subcommittee hearings be open to the public. The OCE should make written reports available online when they are made public.
• The Ethics Committee should publish the “written report and findings” of the OCE regardless of whether the committee vote is consistent with the recommendations of the OCE board.
• Notice of the establishment of an investigative subcommittee should be more timely, and the subcommittee should make its findings public sooner than within one year of beginning its review of a report.

Mr. Ornstein makes these additional suggestions for consideration. "One area is to allow the chairman and ranking member of the Ethics Committee — or the Speaker and Minority Leader — to issue subpoenas on the OCE’s behalf in rare cases where an important investigation is being impeded by a key witness’s refusal to testify or provide relevant information. A second is to consider a role for OCE members or staff to present evidence directly to Ethics Committee members when an investigation reaches the stage that the Waters case has."

The unfortunate dynamics in the Ethics Committee are well known. As noted by Ornstein, either there is detente between the warring political parties that effectively stops the filing of ethics complaints, or the parties engage in filing politicized allegations. Rarely does the Committee -- and the ethics process -- function as one would hope. Strengthening OCE and enacting other transparency reforms can help ameliorate this vicious cycle. Now is the time to do so.

Statement of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Ethics Committee Regarding The Matter of Rep. Waters

Another New York Congressman is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee. According to the New York Post, the House Ethics Committee is investigating Rep. Gregory Meeks for failing to report his one of his wife's sources of income.

The lapses in the Queens Democrat's annual financial filings include his failure to reveal at least one of his wife's sources of income -- a teaching job at Queens College, The Post has learned.

Simone-Marie Meeks earned $2,857 in 2008 as an adjunct at the school, state records show.

Meeks' wife is also the principal of the Lipscomb Lord Group, which she set up in 1999 to do public relations, event planning and advocacy work. Meeks never disclosed the existence of the company.

Roll Call elaborates on previous ethics problems that Meeks has faced:

CREW requested that the Office of Congressional Ethics investigate whether a private loan Meeks received may have violated House rules. Members are allowed to accept private loans under certain conditions.

Meeks disclosed the $40,000 personal loan from businessman Ed Ahmad in his 2009 financial disclosure report. The Congressman reported the loan with a value of $50,000 to $100,000 on his disclosure form and revealed in an amendment that he first received the “interest-only personal loan” in 2007. He had not previously reported the funds, which he noted in another amendment to his financial disclosures in 2010 that he has repaid in full.

Three days after making a scene and storming out of his own trial on violating House ethics rules, Rep. Charlie Rangel returned to the full House Ethics Committee after being found guilty on 11 counts of violating ethics rules and begged for mercy while stridently defending his own personal character. After nearly three hours of hearings and even more time in a closed door session the committee voted 9-1 to censure of the 20-term congressman. The censure motion will be voted on by the full House. Before the committee adjourned to determine a punishment, Rangel, in stark relief to his bellicose actions on Monday, rose before the committee after pausing to wipe away tears and stated in a contrite and exhausted voice unfamiliar to the outspoken congressman, “I walk away, no matter the decision, grateful at my opportunity to serve and recognize that if it weren't for God's gift in saving my life I wouldn't be here. I apologize for any embarrassment I've caused you personally or as a member of the greatest institution in the world.” Rangel's contrition came after two years of investigations where the congressman insisted upon his innocence and denounced the committee's investigation, at times to ludicrous degrees. In the past week Rangel has claimed that the committee denied his right to counsel despite retaining counsel up to the date that the trial was announced. During the hearing earlier today, committee counsel Blake Chisam recommended a censure against Rangel after explaining the historical record for similar violations. The committee, which held its first hearing in 1978, has recommended sanctions sixteen times in its history. Four times it has recommended expulsion and only twice has the full House actually voted to expel. On a total of three occasions the full House has rejected the penalty recommended by the committee. A number of these recommended sanctions included similar violations as the ones that Rangel has been found guilty. Former Rep. Bob Sikes was found guilty of violating financial disclosure rules and received a reprimand; former Rep. Jim Traficant was found guilty, among far more serious charges, of misuse of public resources and was expelled; former Speaker Newt Gingrich was found guilty of violating tax laws and was reprimanded and fined $300,000. Rep. Michael McCaul pointed some barbs towards the counsel Chisam during the question and answer session. McCaul was concerned that Chisam had dismissed the notion that Rangel's activity was corrupt. He stated that many out there would consider a sitting chair of the Ways & Means Committee soliciting money from companies with business before the committee for an eponymous educational center. Chisam responded by stating that his statement was his opinion alone and was based on the record of evidence before the committee. Rep. G.K. Butterfield was the most ardent supporter of Rangel on the committee stating his opposition to a censure. Butterfield stated that, “Censure is extreme,” and that while Rangel was sloppy, his errors were not intentional. It is likely that Butterfield cast the lone vote against censure. Butterfield also noted that members of Congress routinely solicit donations from corporations for charities in their name or on their behalf and the only difference is that Rangel used official resources. Rep. Peter Welch continued this line of thought, but took it further, explaining that this isn't the last we've heard of abuses of power. Welch explained that so long as congressmen receive contributions from organizations that have an interest before them in Congress we are bound to find individuals who violate the public's trust. The censure comes after a long and storied career in Congress for Rangel. This record was driven home by the appearance of Rep. John Lewis alongside Rangel. Lewis, a Civil Rights Era hero and perhaps one of the most revered members of Congress, addressed the committee by stating that he did not know the facts of the case, "but I've known Charlie Rangel for over 50 years." The Georgia congressman ran down the list of Rangel's accomplishments: Korean War hero, law degree thanks to the G.I. Bill, marched from Selma to Montgomery and a "hard-working public servant." Lewis concluded by stating, "Charlie Rangel is a good and decent man. I know this man, I think I know his heart." By the end of the hearing Rangel was left sitting in his chair, legs crossed, hands clasped before his face. His eyes stared off into the floor to his right. He shook his leg nervously and intermittently wiped a tear away. After ascending to become chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee only three years ago, this was the chair that he may be remember sitting in.

Yesterday, the adjudicatory subcommittee trying Rep. Charles Rangel on ethics charges announced that they had found the congressman guilty on 11 of 13 charges. Rangel was acquitted on one count and another count was deemed to be redundant to another charge.

According to a report on the guilty charges released by the subcommittee today, Rangel was acquitted on Charge III, which states:

With no bluff, but all bluster, Rep. Charlie Rangel removed himself from his own ethics trial, declaring that the process was unfair, improper and impartial. The key to Rangel's objection was that he did not have counsel and could not afford a legal team in time for the trial. This may look like an attempt to delay the proceedings, to gum them up or a sincere effort to obtain counsel, but what we were really seeing was what was left of Rangel's defense. The only defense left was to give up on the trial and go forward with a PR strategy to lose the trial, but win in the court of public opinion.

Rangel made this effort clear when he was given an opportunity to ask the committee for a formal request for a delay as he sought counsel, but he refused. This was immediately following his speech to the committee about not having counsel. It took Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a committee member, to ask that the committee review Rangel's request to decide whether to grant Rangel more time.

In rejecting the opportunity to request a delay--who knows if this would have influenced the opinions of the committee members--Rangel made clear that his chief complaint, that he could not retain counsel, is largely bluster.

Rangel, in fact, retained counsel as of a month ago. Rangel and his law firm parted ways almost immediately after the trial date was announced.  The New York Times describes the divorce like this, "Mr. Rangel and his defense team from the firm Zuckerman Spaeder parted ways several weeks ago." It is unclear under what circumstances the two parted ways.

What is clear is that Rangel has no interest in mounting his own legal defense before the committee. The spectacle of his speech and rapid exit from his own trial was just that, a spectacle. By removing himself from his own trial he gets to mount his own defense on his own terms, something that he has already begun,

"The process that the Committee has decided to take against me violates the most basic rights of due process that is guaranteed to every person under the Constitution.  The Committee has deprived me of the fundamental right to counsel and has chosen to proceed as if it is fair and impartial and operating according to rules, when in reality they are depriving me of my rights."

That is a piece from a statement released by Rangel's office this afternoon. Rangel is taking his defense, that of an unfairly put-upon public servant, to the public, particularly his constituents. And what does the trial matter if it is a Rangel trial without Rangel? I think that Jean Baudrillard would say that the trial of Charlie Rangel doesn't exist if there is no Rangel in the trial. And who cares about a verdict in a trial that doesn't exist.

It's not clear if Rangel's stunt will work, but it sure has made the committee's operations smaller than it would have been. All of the attention will focus on Rangel's reaction to the ruling of the committee, as he has changed the public perception of the trial and the ethics charges. I don't think that it will save him from punishment that could lead to the end of his tenure in Congress--not through expulsion, but with a seat as a back-bencher with no fundraising sources. It could, however, aid his reputation when he does leave Congress among the only community he cares about, his constituents.

[5:30 PM]

Here's our final highlight of the day when the committee decides to take behind closed doors their deliberations on whether or not Rep. Rangel is guilty of any of the 13 charges.

[12:38 PM]

Before Rep. Rangel stormed out, he indicted the process for about 12 minutes. We now have the excerpted video clip from The UpTake. Live coverage starts back up at 1PM ET at Sunlight Live. Paul Blumenthal gives a recap of the morning:

The committee trial opened at 9AM this morning and began with opening statements. This quickly ran aground as Charlie Rangel used his opening statement to assail the committee for denying him his right to counsel, this despite Rangel's retention of counsel up to the date that the trial was announced.

Rangel then proceeded to tell the committee that he would not stand trial without counsel, but refused to directly ask the committee to postpone the hearings. After Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a committee member, recommended that the committee consider whether to postpone the matter, the committee went into closed session and Rangel stated his intention on walking out as he did not find it fair that he did not have counsel.

After returning from the closed session the committee announced that it would move forwards with the trial without Rangel. They then heard testimony from the Committee Counsel, who explained the various charges and used Rangel's rambling speech from the floor of the House where he admitted to guilt on certain charges. The committee examined the counsel.

After each committee member asked questions, the committee agreed to go into closed session to decide on a motion of whether the facts presented before the committee are, in fact, correct and factual. That is where we stand now. The committee stated that they will be back by 1 PM at the earliest.

[11:47 AM]

TPM has released video of Rep. Rangel "talking" with reporters after walking out of the committee room. You might have to crank the volume to hear anything useful. More evidence of the press feeding frenzy than anything else but there is one important takeaway per our Senior Writer, Paul Blumenthal:

So, Charlie Rangel is now hiding behind the ethics laws that he is accused of breaking in his defense for walking out of his own ethics trial.

[You] see Rangel tell a reporter that ethics rules prevent him from retaining counsel pro bono. Rangel goes on to state that there are a number of trial lawyers who would love to represent him but can't defend him due to ethics laws that would count pro bono representation as a gift under the very gift rule statute that Rangel is accused of breaking.

Still confused? Jump on over to our live coverage at Sunlight Live and ask a question!

[11:04 AM]

Rep. Charles Rangel's ethics trial got off to an interesting start today when Rep. Rangel walked out on the House Ethics Committee. From The UpTake:

Rangel said he did not have legal representation and was declining to participate in the hearing. The committee considered delaying the hearing to allow Rangel to get legal representation.

The committee went behind closed doors and decided to continue on without Rep. Rangel. They listed several occasions, both formally and informally, where the committee advised Rep. Rangel on how to both pay and retain legal counsel. The expectation today was that Rep. Rangel, a former Assistant US Attorney himself, would provide his own defense.

Continuing live coverage and video at Sunlight Live.

The ethics trials of high profile Democrats Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters will be held after the November midterm elections.

According to a release by House Ethics Committee chair Zoe Lofgren, the committee will begin hearings on the Rangel matter on November 15 and on the Waters matter on November 29.

Stay tuned for more information.