Last week, prosecutors indicated that former Interior Department official J. Steven Griles is a target of their Jack Abramoff investigation. I hope Members of both the House and the Senate saw that story, and understand fully its implications, as they begin to grapple directly with ethics reform. Here is the reality: The Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department is moving ahead full-steam with its investigations into corruption and bribery in Washington, D.C., with a special focus on Congress. It may be surprising that we have not yet seen indictments of Members such as Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.). But indictments are coming, and it is very likely there will be a bunch. And that bunch likely will include a number of Members of Congress and staff.

Resident Scholar Norman J. Ornstein

One of the hallmarks of good and effective leadership is seeing a train wreck ahead and reacting before it occurs to minimize the damage and maximize the positive element. This was a message I repeatedly tried to give to Democratic leaders of Congress in 1993 and 1994 on the issue of Congress exempting itself from a slew of laws and regulations that it applied to others in the society. Nothing more clearly demonstrated to voters how out of touch and elitist Congress was. The options were to act early and get credit for solving the problem--or to wait until it exploded and then act, meaning getting both the blame for inaction and the embarrassment of trying to clean up the mess after the fact. The Democratic leaders waited and waited and, after the explosion, tried unsuccessfully on the eve of the 1994 elections to respond and take the issue off the table. They faced stiff resistance from other powerhouses in their party. But they all paid--big time--for their unwillingness to act early.

I am convinced Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) understand the implications of the election campaign they ran, the reaction of voters and the coming scandal explosion. That is why they are standing behind an independent ethics element in each chamber. Other key House Members also get it, including Reps. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.), Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and John Larson (D-Conn.), as do key Senators such as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). But it is becoming clear that there is substantial, even stiff resistance to an independent ethics component in both chambers, one strong enough to derail it in the coming weeks.

There is some understandable reluctance by thoughtful Members who fear that they could create a monster like the independent counsel statute--an avenging angel who will let his or her own ego or ambition run rampant over the lives and careers of lawmakers. But there are many ways to create a balanced process that still leaves ultimate control of ethics decisions in the hands of the House and the Senate, via their own ethics committees, but also provides an independent and meaningful independent vehicle to screen complaints (and punish those who file frivolous complaints), investigate potential wrongdoing, and take cases where there is substantial evidence of ethical transgressions to the ethics committee for consideration and adjudication. A good independent commission also would have a large staff to do expansive ethics outreach and education for the Congressional community, acting as the repository of information about lobbyists and doing whatever prescreening can be done for privately financed trips, etc.

There are many models here in the states, the vast majority of which have independent ethics commissions for their legislatures, with very few examples of commissions gone wild. Kentucky remains my personal favorite for its balance of independence and meaningful role. Former Rep. Ron Mazzoli (D-Ky.), who was a first-rate Member of Congress, is a member of the Kentucky commission.

But I am hearing from a number of lawmakers that the resistance to creating a meaningful ethics process has nothing to do with the desire to make sure that it is both effective and balanced--but is rooted in the belief that they can get away without doing anything. Some Members say privately that whatever they do will never pass muster with the more adamant elements of the reform community, so why do anything at all. Others think that the ethics issue will not last, and that if they delay long enough the public will lose its focus and its outrage. In the Senate, there is another factor: a high level of smugness--big surprise there, huh?--that the Senate is just fine, thank you, and the problem is only a House one.

This is déjà vu all over again, the Office of Compliance redux. If the naysayers succeed, their victory will be pyrrhic. Once the next scandal explodes, if Congress has done nothing significant to clean up its act and create a credible ethics process--and the performance of the House ethics committee in the past several weeks shows how far away we are from credibility--it will be a huge and tempting target for its own incompetence, myopia and ethical insensitivity. People will justifiably blame both the House and the Senate. What a great way to enter the next election season.

Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.