This morning, the House voted on an amendment to slash the budget of Congress’s independent ethics panel by 40 percent.

By our tally so far, nearly half* of the members of Congress who have been probed by the Office of Congressional Ethics either voted to slash the panel’s budget, voted present or did not vote.

10 11 of the 26 current voting members of Congress (Del. Donna Christensen, D-V.I. cannot vote on the House floor) who have been probed voted to slash the budget. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., voted “present” and G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., did not vote.

So far, we have identified 34 members of Congress who have been under investigation by the OCE. In total, an OCE spokeswoman said it has investigated 82 members. Not all of these members have been publicly disclosed and the OCE does not comment on investigations until they’ve been referred to the House Ethics Committee, a panel made up of members of Congress with the power to punish lawmakers, the spokeswoman said.

As we find more members of Congress investigated by the OCE throughout the day, we will update our list of lawmakers below.

So far, it appears that 24 members of Congress have been referred for further review to the House Ethics Committee by the OCE. This includes 21 cases which have been publicly disclosed by the OCE. It also includes the cases of Reps. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y. and Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, whose reviews were recently announced by the House Ethics Committee. Finally, the 24 members include OCE's recommendation to review the alleged role that Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill., played in former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's corruption scandal. The Ethics Committee has deferred investigating that inquiry at the request of the Department of Justice.**

The amendment was introduced by Mel Watt, D-N.C., who was investigated, along with seven colleagues, by the OCE before the board cleared him of wrongdoing. In a letter to House colleagues before the vote, Watt wrote, “all of these members incurred substantial expenses and experienced unjustified damage to their reputations in the middle of an election, and one of them actually lost his campaign."

In all, 102 legislators voted to reduce the OCE’s funding and 302 voted against the measure.

Interestingly, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who is being investigated by the panel despite OCE’s alleged mishandling of her case, voted against undercutting the board. Rep. Charlie Rangel, who was ultimately censured by his peers last December voted ‘nay’ as well.

24 of the 29 Democrats who voted to slash OCE funding are members of Congressional Black Caucus. CBC members have repeatedly criticized the OCE and introduced legislation to curtail its powers.

*note: The original post mistakenly counted Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill., among those voting for the amendment. He voted against it.

**clarification: The original post said that 26 cases had been referred to the House Ethics Committee. That number is correct, but only 24 of these cases are known to be members of Congress. Two of these cases are regarding House staffers Michael Collins and Greg Hill.

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

Less than an hour ago, the House of Representatives turned back an attempt by Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC) to slash funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics by 40%, but Congress's independent watchdog is still in great danger. Rep. Watt has demanded a recorded vote -- also known as a roll call vote -- which will take place no earlier than 9am Friday morning when the House reconvenes. (Update: votes will likely take place between 10-11:30am). At that time, Mr. Watt and other enemies of the OCE -- some of whom are opponents of the accountability it provides -- will be able to launch another attack when members of the House vote again on amendments to the 2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.

Democratic leaders who created OCE in the last Congress and Republican leaders who wisely acted to ratify its existence this Congress should rally supporters of ethical government to defeat Mr. Watt's efforts proposal. If anything, OCE's budget should be increased and its powers strengthened.  A strong Office of Congressional Ethics is a prerequisite for an open and accountable House of Representatives.

Later today the House of Representatives will consider the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for 2012, which if enacted would provide funds for legislative branch operations for the fiscal year starting on October 1st. Several of the 16 amendments expected to be considered during today's hour-long debate have strong transparency implications, as well as one that is not expected to be considered but is worthy of congressional action.

Make CRS Reports Publicly Available

This amendment, offered by Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), would require the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate to maintain a website containing CRS Reports and Appropriation products, while protecting confidential advice from CRS. The amendment unfortunately will not be considered because of House Rules, but it is noteworthy that it was introduced; the amendment would make many CRS products available to the public through Member and committee websites. These invaluable reports help explain policymaking in easy-to-understand terms, and there's no good reason why they aren't already made available to the public.

We and many other organizations have repeatedly called for easy public access to these reports. There have been public discussions on this topic. Bills have been introduced in Congress again and again. (Rep. Quigley and Sen. Lieberman have been particular leaders on this issue.) It's long past time for Congress to make CRS Reports available to the public.

The House Should Defeat The Attempt to Reduce OCE Funding by 40%

Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) is at it again with an attempt to defund the Office of Congressional Ethics, the House's independent ethics watchdog, perhaps because the office investigated him for questionable activity. In 2010, Watt withdrew an amendment that may have adversely affected corporations that just held a fundraiser for him two days prior to a vote, triggering an investigation. (Watt was ultimately held blameless by the often embattled and deeply conflicted House Ethics Committee -- which is different than the independent OCE.)

Watt's amendment would reduce OCE funding by 40%, which is a $620,000 reduction. Not only do we disagree with the cut, in December we called for OCE's (puny) funding to be doubled this Congress and its powers strengthened. Noted congressional scholar Norm Ornstein just published an editorial in Roll Call that urged OCE be strengthened. Now is not the time to back away from the ethics process. This amendment, which is second in line for consideration, should be defeated.

Revive the Office of Technology Assessment

Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) would revive the Office of Technology Assessment by providing $2.5m for its operations in his amendment. This is a smart move. The OTA was a legislative support agency that provided Congress with objective and authoritative analysis of complex scientific and technical issues. After nearly 25 years of service, it was defunded in 1995 as part of a spasm of cost-cutting, which in OTA's case was overzealous. Technology is at the heart of our economy, and Congress needs smart advice from experts now more than ever. This amendment, which the 12th in line for consideration, should be adopted.

Don't Further Reduce GPO's Budget

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) has offered an amendment that would further reduce the Government Printing Office's budget by $5m. As the report accompanying the bill notes, the amount appropriated to GPO in the legislation is "$22,067,324, or 16.3% below the fiscal year 2011 level and $35,474,000 below the budget request." Considering GPO's key role in making information available to the public, and how drastically its budget is already being cut, this further reduction appears unwarranted. GAO is already set to look into restructuring GPO, per the Committee Report, so these additional cuts are likely premature. Rep. Stutzman's amendment will be considered eighth, and should be defeated.

Other Amendments

There are a number of other noteworthy amendments, but there's two worth highlighting. First, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) would prohibit Members of Congress from using House funds to purchase web ads that advertise Member or Committee websites. We have not yet formulated an opinion on this amendment, but Rep. Flake deserves commendation for continuing to think about the intersection of ethics, money, and new media. His amendment will be considered 11th.

Second, Rep. Erik Paulson (R-Minn.), along with several others, has introduced two amendments that would require legislation and the Congressional Record be distributed to congressional offices electronically and not in printed form, unless requested by the office. While we do not have a recommendation as to passage or defeat, it is great to see thoughtful consideration of how to move the House further into the electronic age. This may be a cost-savings measure, but it also would further the House's embrace of electronic media and would prompt deliberations on how to improve how electronic information is distributed -- both inside Congress and to the public. The Committee on House Administration recently held a hearing on modernizing information delivery in the House.

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

The Office of Congressional Ethics has a new lease on life now that the House Republican leadership has reportedly included the independent watchdog in its 112th Congress rules package. OCE’s continued existence was an open question because it has to be renewed each Congress, and many Republicans -- including the incoming Speaker -- opposed its creation in 2008. (In recent months, a handful of Democrats, including those under investigation for ethics violations, came out against the office. Some opposed its creation from when it was first proposed.)

Legislatures have a hard time policing themselves effectively because of inherent conflicts of interest. Similarly, any attempt to use executive branch agencies (such as the Justice Department) to enforce Congressional ethics rules raises tricky separation of powers questions. The Office of Congressional Ethics avoids both of these problems because it is a legislative entity that is independent of day-to-day congressional control. In addition, unlike the House Ethics Committee, OCE investigates complaints from the public and is required to be open and transparent about its work. And finally, the OCE's role is appropriately limited, recognizing that Members of Congress are ultimately responsible for enforcing ethics rules.

The embrace of OCE by both parties strengthens its hand and creates a sense of permanence that future Speakers will find hard to undo. The Sunlight Foundation recommended that OCE continue to exist, as did a coalition of organizations. We are pleased to see that presumptive Speaker Boehner has stepped up to the plate.

We look forward to reviewing the proposed 112th House Rules for additional ethics reforms, and hope that the Senate will consider creating a similar watchdog.

The Washington Post reports that the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), the only independent ethics body in Congress, is likely to survive despite the criticism it faces. Republicans and Democrats in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have been critical of the OCE over the past year. Despite this, Republicans are unlikely to do away with the body.

In the 33 months since it was formed, the Office of Congressional Ethics has been called unfair, unreasonable and out of control. It has clashed with the House ethics committee and made enemies in both parties.

Yet the OCE - the quasi-independent body charged with vetting allegations against lawmakers and forwarding them to the full ethics panel - is nearly certain to live to see its third birthday.

Despite some media reports to the contrary, several Republican lawmakers and aides inside and outside of the party leadership said there are no plans afoot to kill or significantly weaken the OCE.

The OCE has been responsible for two high profile ethics cases. One involved a CBC trip to the Caribbean, where members attended a conference that was sponsored by corporations. Members of Congress are not allowed to receive paid travel to attend events sponsored by corporations or that involve registered lobbyists. The other case is the still-ongoing trial of Rep. Maxine Waters. Waters faces charges that both she and her chief of staff intervened to aid a struggling bank gain government bailout funds despite Waters' husband's investment in the bank.

The Sunlight Foundation has called for the preservation of the OCE and for Congress to double its budget.

We're reading that the Staff Director for the Office of Congressional Ethics has announced his departure. (Campaign Legal Center, The Hill, NYT)

We've found the groundbreaking OCE to be important enough to call for its funding to be doubled, in our House rules recommendations. Hopefully this departure has more to do with one person's career than it has to do with the future of this office.

"Now is not the time to play politics simply because an election is looming in a few weeks," Sen. Susan Collins said as she cast a vote to filibuster the defense authorization bill that contained a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, a measure that she supported.

I saw this line last week as I watched the usually somnolent and despairing Inside Washington hosted by Gordon Peterson on PBS. Peterson immediately echoed my own thoughts upon hearing Collins' predictable pronouncement. And I paraphrase, "Right before an election seems like the best time to play politics to me."

This is sort of the no s--- statement of past thirty years, where all pundits and politicians bemoan politics as they practice it. It's also an acknowledgment that Sen. Collins' statement itself is a political play. All politics is political and all politicians practice politics. Everyone should know this by now and stop complaining about politicians being political.

That being said, I come to the Republicans on the House Ethics Committee playing politics right before an election. Committee Republicans are demanding that Chair Zoe Lofgren hold ethics trials for embattled congressmen Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters. This public call is a serious break in committee decorum and represents an attempt to politicize the ethics trials even more than they already have been.

The Democrats, of course, postponed the trials for political reasons too. Do you think that the Democrats want to go into the toughest election they've faced in sixteen years with two prominent members facing trials and verdicts? Hell no! So they postpone the trials, which makes the Republicans try to make some noise off of it.

Politicians playing politics. Get used to it.

Now I'm not going to condemn the political maneuvering here, but I will point out the obvious. A congressional ethics process that relies on self-regulation will ultimately reach undesirable conclusions that increase cynicism in the public and reduce trust in our elected officials. The process will also, invariably, become mucked up by politics as these are politicians judging other politicians, sometimes of the opposing party.

The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent body that members of both parties are unhappy with, is already working to increase the accountability of the ethics process. Instead of bemoaning accountability and a stable ethics process, lawmakers should embrace it by maintaining and expanding the Office of Congressional Ethics.

My colleague Lisa Rosenberg wrote about the need to double the office's budget next year, "As Congress struggles to redeem its reputation in the eyes of the public, it should be loathe to return to the days when representatives were solely responsible for policing their own. Both parties should demonstrate their commitment to transparency and accountability by giving the OCE the power and the budget to continue the good work it has begun."

Seeing how the ethics process can be so quickly fouled by politics, it's time for both parties to help increase the independence of ethics oversight.

Amidst some serious waffling by Members of Congress on whether the Office of Congressional Ethics would survive to actively pursue congressional ethics questions in the 112th Congress, our friends in the good government community wrote to Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner seeking their assurances that they would not weaken or disband the OCE.

We wholeheartedly support their efforts, but we would go one step further. Rather than dismantling the office, or even maintaining the status quo, we think the OCE's budget should be doubled when the time comes to reauthorize the office next year. Its current budget of $1.5 million is insufficient for a body charged with investigating potential ethical wrongdoing by 435 Members of the House.

Speaker Pelosi established the OCE as an independent, non-partisan entity charged with reviewing allegations of ethics violations by House Members. It has been relatively successful during its short tenure, investigating 60 cases and referring a dozen to the House Ethics committee.

Perhaps not surprisingly in the self-serving world of Capitol Hill, some of those on the receiving end of the OCE's investigation now want to dismantle the body. Others, though unscathed by the OCE's work, decided early on to oppose its very creation.

As Congress struggles to redeem its reputation in the eyes of the public, it should be loathe to return to the days when representatives were solely responsible for policing their own. Both parties should demonstrate their commitment to transparency and accountability by giving the OCE the power and the budget to continue the good work it has begun.