By Lee H. Hamilton
With the elections over, Congress faces a full plate of tough issues when
it reconvenes. There will be a lot of talk about fiscal matters, “grand
bargains,” and sorting out party caucuses. But there’s one vitally important
question we’re certain to hear nothing about.
That is Congress’s own behavior — and more specifically, the behavior of
its members. After what may be the most widely panned session in modern
congressional history, Capitol Hill ought to use every means possible to rebuild
the American people’s trust. Yet the matter over which it has the most control —
striving to ensure the ethical behavior of its members — seems to be on no one’s
agenda.
Earlier this year, The Washington Post detailed a stunning array
of questionable practices. Its reporters found that 130 members and their
families had traded stock in companies registered to lobby before their
committees — and that over 5,000 of those trades occurred as the bills those
companies were interested in came before Congress. In some cases, the ethics
were even dicier. One lawmaker put her name on legislation extending the
lifespan of federal grazing permits — which her husband used for feeding his
cattle. All told, the Post found, 73 members of Congress “sponsored or
co-sponsored legislation in recent years that could benefit businesses or
industries in which either they or their family members are involved or
invested.”
What might seem dubious to you or me doesn’t even raise an eyebrow in
Congress, however. Legislators argue that because they need to represent the
interests of their constituents, and their own interests often overlap with
their constituents’, that means leaving them free to enact bills and direct
federal money that just happens to boost their financial prospects.
The ethics committees seem largely to agree. Since the scandals that
brought down speakers Jim Wright and Newt Gingrich in the 1990s and then-House
Majority Leader Tom DeLay in 2004, committee members in both the House and the
Senate have been reluctant to police their colleagues. In the past couple of
years, only two House members have been disciplined for ethical breaches. The
Senate committee has sent out four “letters of admonishment.”
Ethics watchdogs believe the committees are more interested in protecting
members than in overseeing them. It’s hard to argue with them when the
Post investigation found that the ethics committees had given scores of
lawmakers permission to direct earmarks to projects close to their own homes and
tax money to institutions where they had relatives on the board.
Look, this isn’t complicated. To the ethics committees, these members of
Congress were in the clear. But in terms of what ordinary citizens expect from
their representatives, does their behavior pass the smell test? Is it okay to
use public office to help oneself and one’s family financially? I don’t think
so.
Because there is one rule that the ethics committees seem conveniently to
have forgotten: it’s the rule that members should always behave in a way that
reflects credit on the institution they serve. Instead, what the public sees is
an institution that protects its members by holding them to a far lower
standard.
This matters at the moment not just because Congress’s credibility is in
the tank. Four years ago Congress did act — though only under great pressure —
to improve its ethical standing. It created the Office of Congressional Ethics,
an independent monitor that has used its scant power effectively to review
members’ behavior and recommend action. Some of the cases it brought were so
compelling they even spurred the ethics committees to investigate. The OCE seems
properly to view congressional office as a public trust.
This may be because its board is made up of highly respected former members
and public servants. For the office to continue its work, however, half those
board members will need to be replaced by the start of the new congressional
term in January, because their terms are expiring. So far, House leaders of both
parties — who are charged with naming the board — have dragged their
heels.
Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana
University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34
years.
No comments:
Post a Comment