On March 11, the House voted to create an Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The six-member independent panel will have the power to begin formal investigations into allegations of ethics violations of House members and either dismiss the claims or refer them to the House Ethics Committee. OCE members will be appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House and the Minority Leader. The debate over the panel was intense, and Democratic leaders were forced to pull the proposal from the floor twice before the vote. The vote ends a process that took more than a year to resolve.

When Democrats took control of the 110th Congress in January 2007, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced a plan to create a bipartisan task force that would consider whether the House should create an outside ethics enforcement entity. The May 1, 2007, deadline stretched into December when the chair of the task force, Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA), released H. Res. 895, to create an independent ethics office that would conduct preliminary investigations.

All Republicans on the task force opposed the measure. In addition, some members did not want outsiders to review House ethics investigations. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) offered an alternative, H. Res. 1003, that would have expanded the current 10-member Ethics Committee by adding four former House members, two from each party. Many advocacy groups opposed the Capuano plan as well, arguing that lack of subpoena power and authority to put people under oath made it too weak. There were also fears that the panel would create more bureaucracy or give rise to partisan complaints.

The Democratic leadership planned to bring the proposal up for a floor vote on Feb. 28, but the vote was postponed because of considerable bipartisan criticism. In response to the criticism, Capuano made three amendments. First, all appointments to the panel must be made jointly. The Speaker and Minority Leader both nominate three members, subject to the others' agreement. The second and third amendments revised the two-step review process. An investigation can only begin if one member of each party agrees that the case should move forward. The third amendment also clarified that a review could only proceed if at least three members of the OCE voted affirmatively. If a case makes it past the second phase, the board would then refer the case to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the current House ethics committee. Upon introducing these changes, Capuano sent out a Dear Colleague letter that stated, "Taken together, these three amendments make it impossible to initiate a partisan witch hunt … and impossible to use partisan stonewalling to thwart a reasonable review once it has begun. Members are protected, but so is the integrity of the process."

Despite remaining skepticism, with a vote of 229-182, the House passed the revised Capuano proposal on March 11. Republicans criticized the process that was used to get the resolution passed. Democrats kept the procedural vote on the issue open for 16 extra minutes. According to Roll Call (subscription), "During a procedural vote preceding final passage of the resolution, known as 'ordering the previous question,' Democrats appeared to lose, as nearly two dozen of their own Members voted against the proposal. But Democrats refused to gavel the vote closed for another 12 minutes beyond the normal 15-minute period, as leadership pressed four Members to change votes and provided the majority a narrow victory."

Highlights of the new Office of Congressional Ethics include:

• For the first time, individuals other than members of Congress will be able to initiate formal investigations into allegations of wrongdoing
• Members of the OCE cannot be current members of Congress or registered lobbyists and can only be a member if they have been off the House payroll for a year
• Terms will last four years, with one reappointment possible
• OCE will be prohibited from initiating an investigation within 60 days of a primary or general election