Three lawmakers accused of serious ethical lapses have been forced to resign in just over a week, prompting even members of the House Ethics Committee to question whether the panel is up to the task of policing its own.
The committee is at a moment of reckoning as it seeks to prove itself ready, willing and able to root out bad behavior in its ranks. It’s spent the past year and a half rebuilding its reputation after internal disagreements about how to handle an ethics report over ex-Rep. Matt Gaetz spilled into the public and threatened the bipartisan panel’s credibility.
Now, amid the high-profile resignations of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) and Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.), members who sit on the highly secretive committee are opening up — eager to share their perspectives, acknowledge their limitations and defend their work.
“The reality is we are still too slow, and I believe that we should be moving faster. I’ve expressed some of my recommendations on how we can do that to staff,” said Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), who joined the Ethics Committee this Congress, in an interview. “I want people to take the Ethics Committee more seriously.”
In extended interviews Monday and Tuesday, Ethics Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) said his panel is hamstrung by the House’s institutional bureaucracy.
“I’ve been asked, you know, could the Ethics Committee, if there were additional resources provided to the committee, would that help us move cases through quickly? And of course, the answer to that is yes,” Guest said. “But you know, it has to be up to leadership. It has to be up to the Speaker and the Minority Leader as to the size of the staff that they would like to see the Ethics Committee command.”
Their comments come amid questions around how Gonzales and Swalwell were able to serve in office for so long unchecked: Both were accused of engaging in sexual misconduct with former staffers, with Swalwell accused of rape. Each stepped down before the Ethics Committee ever had a chance to render findings of fault and enact punishments.
Cherfilus-McCormick also resigned moments before the Ethics Committee was due to meet Tuesday afternoon to consider a punishment for a determination that she illicitly funneled millions to support her campaign, which could have culminated in a recommendation of expulsion.
Now attention is turning to Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.), who stands accused of numerous violations, including illicitly engaging in government contracts while in federal office and threatening to release a former girlfriend’s nude videos. He has maintained he has no plans to resign as his case before the Ethics Committee has languished without resolution.
In November, the House Ethics panel quietly requested the Office of Congressional Conduct — the quasi-independent office that fields and investigates complaints against members and staff from the public — to drop its probe into Mills, according to a person with knowledge of the ethics process who was granted anonymity to describe the confidential process. That message was transmitted to the OCC the same day the House voted to effectively table a resolution offered by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) to censure Mills for various alleged improprieties.
The OCC was established in 2008 by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and proponents say it provides a necessary, largely independent set of eyes — including on ongoing investigations. Critics view the OCC as an untrustworthy political group; it sat defanged for months this Congress before Speaker Mike Johnson brought a perfunctory measure to the House floor that set up its ability to launch investigations by appointing its board.
Guest declined to discuss details of the Mills case but did not deny that such a request had been made, saying it was standard practice for Ethics to take the reins on a probe from OCC “once an investigative subcommittee is established.”
He conceded the Ethics Committee at times may operate slower than some would like, but its process was deliberate and thorough. “If members want this to be a rush committee where we have two weeks to come up with a report and return that report back to the body, then I’m not the right person to be serving in that room.”
He did say he hoped to discuss with Johnson how to improve the panel’s operations. One continued challenge for members is the loss of jurisdiction once a lawmaker resigns from Congress, which has historically meant the committee stops its investigation and does not release a report of its findings. Guest proposed a new policy where a report could be made public upon a lawmaker’s resignation, meaning bad actors could not always leave office in order to hide from revelations about their misdeeds.
Rep. Mark DeSaulnier of California, the top Democrat on the Ethics Committee, said the committee could better handle cases of sexual misconduct and has spoken to Democratic leadership about modernizing the panel.
“I think on sexual harassment, [the] thing that occurs to me is that there should be one place to go that’s clear to report, that has enough staff, and they’re been very well trained in the subject area, so that people feel like there’s a place they can go and be safe, protected,” he said. “And then there’s a due process that responds in a way that is deliberative, but under the urgency of circumstances.”
This is an area where the Ethics Committee has, in recent weeks, found itself struggling to respond to public pressure. When the House was poised in March to vote on a measure brought by Mace that would have compelled the committee to make information on sexual harassment claims public, Guest and DeSaulnier said in a statement it would have a chilling effect for victims. The resolution was ultimately tabled.
On Monday, the panel released a statement reaffirming its commitment to taking allegations of sexual misconduct seriously — and a list of publicly disclosed sexual misconduct investigations dating back to 1976. Many of those cases were closed without resolution because the member under scrutiny resigned from office before the committee could conclude the case.
One lawmaker who has served on the Ethics Committee, who requested anonymity to describe the panel’s private operations, argued that disclosure of sexual misconduct cases can harm potential victims who may not want their cases brought before the panel in the first place.
This explanation is largely falling on deaf ears from members who want more transparency and accountability, though, with Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) calling the Monday release of previously disclosed sexual misconduct allegations against House members an inadequate “cleanup job.”
Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), a member of the Ethics Committee and a former federal prosecutor, suggested that improving the panel’s internal systems for handling sexual harassment claims might be a lost cause.
“I think the ugly truth is there’s no process that handles this well that I’ve seen, whether it’s state courts, federal courts, internal corporate investigations, Congress or the Senate,” he said.
Read the full article here