As Congress returns from its Thanksgiving recess it still has a lot on its plate. In the final stretch of this lame-duck 111th Congress, legislators must address George W. Bush-era tax cuts, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and ratifying a new arms-control treaty with Russia. With all of the important issues left to resolve, why is the House Ethics Committee dragging its feet regarding the investigation of Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA)?
In August the House Ethics Committee formally charged Rep. Waters with three counts of violating the letter and spirit of House rules and federal regulations for improperly intervening with Treasury officials to bail out OneUnited Bank. A bank in which her husband owned at least $350,000 in stock and on whose board he once served. Her public trial was scheduled to begin when Congress returned from its Thanksgiving recess on November 29th.
On November 19th, the chair of the House Ethics Committee issued the following statement, “The committee voted to recommit the matter regarding Representative Maxine Waters to the investigative subcommittee due to materials discovered that may have had an effect on the investigative subcommittee’s transmittal to the committee…As a result, the adjudicatory subcommittee no longer has jurisdiction over this matter and the adjudicatory hearing previously scheduled for November 29, 2010 will not be held.” Translated in simple English, the trial of Rep. Waters has been postponed indefinitely (probably never to be heard of again).
The case against her appears to have unraveled as, according to the Associated Press, a recently discovered e-mail by Waters’ chief of staff — who’s also her grandson — says that she is closely watching the bank bailout legislation but makes no mention of her husband or OneUnited Bank. Even though OneUnited Bank did receive $12m in bailout funds, officials from the Treasury Department have stated Rep. Waters played no role in the decision.
WATCH MSNBC COVERAGE OF MAXINE WATERS:
If officials from the Treasury Department are on record stating Rep. Waters played no role in the decision, why “recommit the matter…to the investigative subcommittee”? Just admit that based upon the recently discovered information Rep. Waters is exonerated and the investigation is over. At least “recommit the matter” to the subcommittee with a recommendation that they end the investigation.
When considering how the committee is handling the Rep. Waters case, one should also consider how the same committee has voted to punish Congressman Charlie Rangel. These cases may raise more questions than they answer. The committee voted to censure Rep. Rangel for committing 11 counts of fundraising and financial misdeeds in stead of reprimanding him.
Does Rep. Rangel’s punishment fit the offense(s)? Short of expulsion from the House, censure is the most severe punishment that the House can impose upon a member. Rep. Rangel argues (and there is precedent to support it) that censure is too harsh in this case. Censure is usually imposed for violations including bribery, accepting improper gifts, personal use of campaign funds and sexual misconduct; none is present in his case. A reprimand appears to be more fitting for Rep. Rangel’s offenses.
Questions also remain regarding the investigatory process and the racial make up of those being investigated. Political watchdog organizations such as the National Legal and Policy Center, the Landmark Legal Foundation, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government have all made requests to the OEC to investigate members of congress for ethics violations. The interesting data point to consider is that of all of the active OEC investigations focus on members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).
It’s not that CBC members have or have not done any thing wrong. What is interesting is how the allegations of ethics violations brought against white congressional members such as Reps., Pete Visclosky (D-IN), Alan Mollohan (D-W.VA), Jim Moran (D-VA), Eric Cantor (R-VA), or Senator Jane Harmon (D-CA) have been disposed of differently with the case against Sam Graves (R-MO) being thrown out. Right may be right, but wrong and the punishment for wrong doing appear to be discretionary.
Congressman Rangel was convicted. Treat him fairly. His punishment should fit the offense and should be consistent with those who have come before him; reprimand not censure. The case against Congresswoman Waters has become all sizzle and no steak. The House Ethics Committee should always be ethical. It is one thing to “recommit the matter…to the investigative subcommittee” and another to clear her good name.
Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “Inside the Issues with Wilmer Leon,” and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com. www.twitter.com/drwleon
