GOP Pushes Rule Change to
Protect DeLay's Post
Washington Post
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A01
House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to
allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a
leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom
DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that
has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP
leaders.
The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted
would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House
Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for
the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's
elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas
last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring
or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into
fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's
redistricting actions.
Tom DeLay is credited with boosting House GOP majority. (File
Photo)
House GOP leaders and aides said many rank-and-file
Republicans are eager to change the rule to help DeLay, and will
do so if given a chance at today's closed meeting. A handful of
them have proposed language for changing the rule, and they will
be free to offer amendments, officials said. Some aides said it
was conceivable that DeLay and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)
ultimately could decide the move would be politically damaging
and ask their caucus not to do it. But Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.),
another member of the GOP leadership, said he did not think
Hastert and DeLay would intervene.
House Republicans adopted the indictment rule in 1993, when
they were trying to end four decades of Democratic control of the
House, in part by highlighting Democrats' ethical lapses. They
said at the time that they held themselves to higher standards
than prominent Democrats such as then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan
Rostenkowski (Ill.), who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud
and was sentenced to prison.
The GOP rule drew little notice until this fall, when DeLay's
associates were indicted and Republican lawmakers began to worry
that their majority leader might be forced to step aside if the
grand jury targeted him next. Democrats and watchdog groups
blasted the Republicans' proposal last night.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last night:
"If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet
again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical.
If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed
to hold a top leadership position in the House of
Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing."
House Republicans recognize that DeLay fought fiercely to
widen their majority, and they are eager to protect him from an
Austin-based investigation they view as baseless and partisan,
said Rep. Eric I. Cantor (Va.), the GOP's chief deputy whip.
"That's why this [proposed rule change] is going to pass,
assuming it's submitted, because there is a tremendous
recognition that Tom DeLay led on the issue to produce five more
seats" for the Republicans, Cantor said after emerging from a
meeting in which the Republican Conference welcomed new members
and reelected Hastert and DeLay as its top leaders.
Other Republicans agreed the conference is likely to change
the rule if given the chance. An indictment is simply an unproven
allegation that should not require a party leader to step aside,
said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.), a
former trial judge, said it makes sense to differentiate between
federal and state indictments in shaping party rules because
state grand juries often are led by partisan, elected prosecutors
who may carry political grudges against lawmakers.
Republicans last night were tweaking the language of several
proposals for changing the rule. The one drawing the most
comment, by Rep. Henry Bonilla (Tex.), would allow leaders
indicted by a state grand jury to stay on. However, a leader
indicted by a federal court would have to step down at least
temporarily.
"Congressman Bonilla's rule change is designed to prevent
political manipulation of the process while preserving the
original ethical principles of the rule," Bonilla spokeswoman
Taryn Fritz Walpole said.
Hastert and DeLay, meanwhile, are publicly taking a hands-off
posture. Hastert told reporters the decision was up to the
conference, adding, "we'll see what happens." DeLay spokesman
Stuart Roy said his boss "believes we should allow members of the
conference to come to their own conclusions and let the
conference work its will without him exerting undue influence one
way or the other."
A Texas grand jury in September indicted three of DeLay's
political associates on charges of using a political action
committee to illegally collect corporate donations and funnel
them to Texas legislative races. The group, Texans for a
Republican Majority Political Action Committee, is closely
associated with DeLay. DeLay says he has not acted improperly and
has no reason to believe he is a target of the grand jury, which
continues to look into the TRMPAC matter.
The House ethics committee on Oct. 6 admonished DeLay for
asking federal aviation officials to track an airplane involved
in the highly contentious 2003 redistricting battle, and for
conduct that suggested political donations might influence
legislative action. The ethics panel deferred action on a
complaint related to TRMPAC, noting that the grand jury has not
finished its work.
The Texas investigation is headed by Travis County District
Attorney Ronnie Earle, an elected Democrat who has been bitterly
criticized by DeLay supporters. Yesterday, Cantor called Earle's
efforts "a witch hunt."
"It's a totally a partisan exercise," Cantor said. "It's
coincidental with what's going on up here [in the Capitol], where
they are trying every avenue to go after Tom DeLay because they
can't beat him" on the House floor or in congressional elections.
Changing the rule is not a sign that lawmakers think DeLay will
be indicted, Cantor said, but rather a public rebuke of an
investigation they feel is wholly unwarranted.
|