GOP pushes for stricter ethics reform

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

The debates on a House bill that would nix federal pensions for convicted lawmakers and a Senate measure to cut pork spending underscored how scandal-scarred Republicans are backing broader ethics reforms than the new Democratic majority is.

"We did have colleagues who violated the trust of the Congress and the public. We have to fix it," said Rep. Lee Terry, a Nebraska Republican whose pension-reform bill was sidelined by Democratic leaders in favor of a weaker bill. "When one of our own breaks the rules, we don't rally around them."

The House yesterday started considering a bill by Rep. Nancy Boyda, Kansas Democrat, that denies federal pensions to members of Congress convicted of bribery, perjury and conspiracy offenses related to the lawmaker's office. A vote could come as soon as today.

Separate bills by Mr. Terry and Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican, would have withheld the pension from lawmakers convicted of a longer list of felonies, including some unrelated to abuse of office -- ranging from white-collar embezzlement crimes to political crimes such as securing campaign contributions by intimidation.

The Democratic bill had a shorter list of pension-losing crimes because the leadership promised "this bill can be passed and enacted into law as soon as possible," said Shanan Guinn, spokeswoman for Mrs. Boyda.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats fought to defeat a Republican measure that would authorize the president to remove earmarks -- and send them back to Congress for a second look and another vote. Earmarks, or pork, are provisions in a bill to fund specific projects, often used by members of Congress to pay for pet projects in their home districts or states.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said through a spokesman that earmark reform was just a ruse to pass a "line-item veto."

"It would be used to attack Social Security, Medicare and other items for those with the greatest need," spokesman Jim Manley said.

Under the proposal, the power to revise spending bills differs from a line-item veto in that either the House or Senate can reject it with a simple majority vote. Congress passed a true line-item veto in 1996, which would have required a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. The Supreme Court declared the veto unconstitutional two years later.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, called it a common-sense approach to fiscal responsibility.