Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hefley [R-Co] alleges ethics retaliation
Rocky Mountain News ^ | March 17, 2006 | M.E. Sprengelmeyer

Posted on 03/17/2006 10:57:41 AM PST by SolidSupplySide

WASHINGTON — A new piece of ethics reform legislation is Rep. Joel Hefley's strongest statement yet that he felt retaliation last year over his handling of a complaint against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

In the past, Hefley, R-Colorado Springs, has downplayed speculation about his removal from the ethics committee chairmanship in early 2005, shortly after the committee admonished DeLay for actions related to campaign fundraising.

"If they want someone new, I'm not going to accuse them of retaliation," Hefley said in February 2005.

But this week, Hefley joined one of two other ousted committee members, Rep. Kenny Hulshof, R-Mo., in proposing new rules that would toughen ethics enforcement and prevent ethics committee leaders from being ousted without a two-thirds vote of the full House of Representatives.

In an interview at his office overlooking the U.S. Capitol, Hefley was asked if he now believes there was retaliation in 2005, when Republican leaders removed him, Hulshof and Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, and soon after fired the top lawyers who worked on the DeLay investigation.

"I think there was en element of that. There's no question about it," Hefley said.

"One of the things it taught me is, in order for the committee to work properly, you can't have retaliation for the decisions you make," he said.

House Republican leaders consistently have denied there was any retaliation, although they were forced to back down from rules changes that critics called an attempt to shield DeLay from further scrutiny.

Hefley recently announced he will end his 20-year run in Congress by retiring at the end of the year. Before he goes, he is trying to address Capitol Hill's ongoing lobbying scandal by leaving behind a stronger, more independent ethics committee, which is officially known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

The new Hefley-Hulshof bill would create six-year terms for ethics committee members, ban members from consulting with their party leadership on cases, give members subpoena power earlier in the fact-finding process, and mandate ethics training for lawmakers. It also would give the committee more power to scrutinize privately-funded travel by members of Congress, and require lobbying records — including lists of gifts to lawmakers — to be disclosed on the Internet.

With a flurry of reform proposals lately, Democrats and Republicans appear to be in an "arms race on who's the most righteous," Hefley said. But he and Hulshof said the real solution is toughening the enforcement procedures that already are in place.

"We proved that it can work, and it can work in a bipartisan way," Hefley said.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Colorado; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 109th; delay; ethics; hefley
I truly see a split in the GOP base over ethics.

Some will approve of Hefley's plan to enforce ethical standards on Congressmen. Others will think he's a crank for doing that very thing.

1 posted on 03/17/2006 10:57:44 AM PST by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Geeezzzz...this post needed an 'anti-DeLay' ALERT from the poster, SolidSupplySide [aka; Butthole!] but it is what it is.


2 posted on 03/17/2006 11:08:11 AM PST by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

If these 3 whiney-a$$ed, a$$holes don't like the way the GOP leadership runs the majority they should switch their affiliation to demonRATs and try to get elected as what they are...demonRATs.


3 posted on 03/17/2006 11:10:12 AM PST by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidSupplySide
Joel Hefley has represented me in the House for 20 years. He's a good man, a solid conservative and a loyal lifelong Republican. He's 70 years old and his retirement had alot to do with the BS that he received for having the audacity, aka. COJONES, to do his job and in the process step on the toes of Tom Delay and other House leaders like Dennis Hastert. If there is a split in the GOP over ethics issues, I'd say those Pubbies who believe they should have no standards to guide their behavior, need to get out of the GOP today. Corruption undermines the entire political process.
4 posted on 03/17/2006 11:19:44 AM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Agreed.


5 posted on 03/17/2006 12:22:30 PM PST by loreldan (Lincoln, Reagan, & G. W. Bush - the cure for Democrat lunacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: harpu
"If these 3 whiney-a$$ed, a$$holes don't like the way the GOP leadership runs the majority they should switch their affiliation to demonRATs and try to get elected as what they are...demonRATs."

Witness and judiciary intimidation aren't allowed in legal proceedings. Don't see how this is any different. There needs to be permanent oversight of Congressional ethics. I'd prefer to see it come from outside of Congress, however (foxes don't make the best guardians of chicken-coops). A citizen's task-force selected in the same manner as a trial-jury would be the best answer, IMHO.

6 posted on 03/17/2006 6:09:22 PM PST by CowboyJay (Rough Riders! Tancredo '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Hear, hear!

Thank you for defending Hefley. He's a good egg with more backbone and moral fiber than 99% of the crooks up on the Hill, ATM. The way he was 'rewarded' for 20 years of dedicated public service, leadership and party loyalty is disgusting.


7 posted on 03/17/2006 6:12:43 PM PST by CowboyJay (Rough Riders! Tancredo '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CowboyJay
CowboyJay [February 14, 2006] says...

"Witness and judiciary intimidation aren't allowed in legal proceedings. Don't see how this is any different. There needs to be permanent oversight of Congressional ethics. I'd prefer to see it come from outside of Congress, however (foxes don't make the best guardians of chicken-coops). A citizen's task-force selected in the same manner as a trial-jury would be the best answer, IMHO."

Well, thank you, Pilgrim, I'm certainly a better person having heard your humble opinion expressed.

8 posted on 03/18/2006 5:20:27 AM PST by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SolidSupplySide

Since neither the Democrats or the Republicans want ethics reform, Hefley and Hulshof are wasting their time.

>>> I truly see a split in the GOP base over ethics.

You're crazy. There is not going to be any GOP split on this issue. If anything the GOP has pulled together to fight the Democrats on this matter, except for the RINO's.

Posted by TAB


9 posted on 03/19/2006 3:14:25 AM PST by flattorney ( The DeLay Chronicles - Updated 24/7: http://www.freerepublic.com/~flattorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson