2 Republicans Step Aside From Ethics Panel


WASHINGTON - Two Republicans on the House ethics committee say they'll step aside from any investigation of Tom DeLay, acknowledging their contributions to the majority leader's defense funds will lead others to question their impartiality.



The withdrawal announcement Wednesday represented the second time in two weeks that majority Republicans caved in to criticism by minority Democrats. Last week, Republicans reversed themselves and voted to reinstate investigative procedures they put in place nearly a decade ago.

Democrats have complained for months that Speaker Dennis Hastert appointed Republicans Lamar Smith of Texas and Tom Cole of Oklahoma to make the panel more favorable to DeLay, R-Texas. Both said they could be impartial despite their contributions, but they agreed with ethics committee Chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., that it was best to avoid controversy.

Cole then took a shot at his Democratic critics: "Those that sought to politicize the ethics process should start putting the institution ahead of their partisan agenda."

Smith and Cole replaced two Republicans who voted to admonish DeLay on three separate matters in 2004. Hastert also had refused to reappoint the former Republican chairman of the committee, Rep. Joel Hefley (news, bio, voting record) of Colorado, who presided over the rebukes. Hefley had asked to remain chairman this year even though his term had ended.

The recusal decision was made as the panel formally adopted rules that will allow it to initiate investigations and receive complaints of member misconduct.

Last week, Republicans retreated from the investigative rules they had adopted in January without Democratic support. Democrats had complained the rules were designed to protect DeLay, and they kept the evenly divided panel from organizing until the GOP reversed them in a vote of the full House.

DeLay is certain to face an ethics inquiry this year because he has requested one.

Questions have been raised about whether Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist now under criminal investigation, paid for foreign travel by DeLay and several aides. House rules prohibit lawmakers from accepting travel expenses from lobbyists.

DeLay has said he had no knowledge that Abramoff, or any of his clients, paid for travel and told reporters he's ready to provide the committee years of travel records.

Hastings, the chairman, said the Smith and Cole contributions to DeLay's legal defense funds "raised doubts — however unwarranted — about whether those members would be able to judge fairly allegations of impropriety against Mr. DeLay."

DeLay has had several funds over the years to help him defend himself in different controversies.

Smith contributed $5,000 last year to help DeLay defend himself in the ethics probe, a potential problem because one of the matters under investigation was deferred. That issue, involving corporate contributions in Texas to a political committee started by DeLay, could be revived after Texas authorities conclude a criminal investigation.

Smith also contributed $5,000 in 2000 to help DeLay's defense against a civil lawsuit.

Cole donated $5,000 last year, during the ethics committee's investigation.

Smith, a former ethics committee chairman, said in a statement, "I continue to believe that I could judge this matter fairly and I remain committed to judging other matters that come before the committee fairly.

"However, any decision of the committee on any matter relating to Mr. DeLay will come under intense scrutiny. To ensure that any decision is final and not subject to any question, I believe it will be in the best interests of all concerned to recuse myself in such a situation."

Cole said he was confident he could be fair and impartial, but added, "I believe it is important for the committee and for the House that its actions be viewed as nonpartisan and objective by the members of this institution and by the public."

Meanwhile, DeLay told reporters on Wednesday that the committee should issue clearer rules on travel sponsored by private groups.

He said he would prefer that the committee "set up a process by which a member can go to them and submit a proposed invitation on a trip — whether it be foreign or domestic — and the ethics committee approve or disapprove it."

"Then everybody knows what is proper and isn't proper," DeLay said. "I think that is the best way to go. I'm not suggesting that. I'm not pushing it. I'm asking the ethics committee to look at this as a problem for the institution."

Hastert made similar comments. "I think there needs to be real guidance by the committee about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. I think we're going to take a look at it," he