Majority leader will be allowed to keep post if he is indicted in Texas.
Friday, November 19,
2004
By Peter Lyman
Washington bureau
All three of Central New York's congressmen support a change allowing House leaders to keep their posts even if charged with felonies, but only one of them was in the room when the Republican caucus approved the change Wednesday.
In an unrecorded voice vote, GOP members threw out a requirement that House leaders must surrender their leadership posts if they are indicted on felony charges. The move is aimed at protecting Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who has been mentioned in connection with a Texas case in which three of his political associates have been indicted. DeLay has not been charged.
Rep. James Walsh, R-Onondaga, was present when the vote was taken in a closed meeting. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New Hartford, was at the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., for follow-up care related to heart surgery he had in September. Rep. John McHugh, R-Pierrepont Manor, was in a House Armed Services subcommittee meeting.
Walsh supported the rule change because he believes such issues must be decided on a case-by-case basis, according to the specific circumstances, said spokesman Dan Gage.
Boehlert also supported the change because the case in question involve state charges, not federal, and may be influenced by partisan politics, according to spokesman Sam Marchio.
McHugh, a member of the steering committee of the House GOP caucus, also expressed support for the rule change.
"Indictments can be used as political tools," McHugh said. "This DA in Texas has a record of political indictments."
Austin District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, is investigating fund-raising activities by a political action committee closely associated with DeLay. In the early 1990s, an Earle investigation led to charges against Kay Bailey Hutchison, then a Texas official and now a Republican senator. Those charges were later dropped.
The rule at issue was adopted by House Republicans in 1993, when they were in the minority. At the time, it was seen as a way of spotlighting the ethical problems of prominent House Democrats.