| < Go Back |
| |
For Immediate Release
March 8, 2006 |
| |
Shays, Meehan, Wilson, Gerlach,
English Push for Stronger Ethics Process in Congress
WASHINGTON, DC - As the Senate debates lobbying
and ethics reform proposals, Representatives Christopher Shays
(R-CT) and Heather Wilson (R-NM) today held a press conference
to advocate for legislation to strengthen the ethics process
in Congress. Shays and Representative Marty Meehan (D-MA)
introduced H.R.4799, which seeks to establish an Office of
Public Integrity, a professional, independent, non-partisan
office to investigate ethics complaints and inquiries in Congress.
Phil English (R-PA) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA) are also cosponsors
of the bill.
"The American people need to be able to trust that our
government is run ethically. Recent scandals have eroded that
trust and creating an Office of Public Integrity is an important
step to regain it. A non-partisan office to investigate ethics
violations would help take politics out of the currently stalled
ethics process," Shays said.
"The failure of ethics enforcement is at the heart of
the current scandals in Washington," Meehan said. "No
reform proposal can be considered serious that does not include
a major overhaul of the ethics enforcement process. Just as
we have a Public Integrity Section in the Department of Justice
to deal with public corruption, we need an independent, non-partisan,
professional office in the Congress to enforce ethics rules
and lobbying laws."
“I support creating a nonpartisan Office of Public
Integrity,” Wilson said. “When individual members
appear to have broken the rules, they should be investigated
by an independent professional. We need a nonpartisan office
that can investigate allegations of wrongdoing. Federal agencies
have Inspectors General and the executive branch has an Office
of Public Integrity. The Congress should be able to police
its own members.”
"It is fairly clear that many of the current ethical
concerns about lobbying practices in and around Congress center
on enforcement," English said. "The Office of Public
Integrity would significantly improve the process of enforcing
ethics laws within the institution and, in effect, make a
substantial contribution to restoring public confidence in
the Congress."
The Office of Public Integrity would cover both the House
and the Senate and be led by a publicly credible, professionally
experienced individual selected jointly by the Republican
and Democratic leaders in Congress to serve as Director.
The Office would be responsible for:
- Overseeing and reviewing member financial disclosure
reports and lobbying reports (currently a role for the Clerk
of the House and Secretary of the Senate);
- Providing informal advise to members, staff, and lobbyists
on ethics and lobbying rules;
- Investigating allegations of ethics violations (1) filed
by Members or outside individual and groups and (2) initiated
by the office's own jurisdiction;
- Presenting cases and evidence to the ethics committees
for decisions of whether violations have occurred and recommending
sanctions where violations are found by the committees;
and
- Referring probable violations of lobbying laws by lobbyists
and lobbying organizations to the Department of Justice.
###
What is the “Office of Public Integrity?”
The Office of Public Integrity would serve as an investigator
for violations of House rules and, in effect, a prosecutor
for the Ethics Committee. The Office would also provide guidance,
both formal and informal, for Members and their staff on the
permissibility of actions under House rules. Finally, the
Office would provide informal guidance to registered lobbyists
about reporting requirements and conduct random audits of
reports.
Why is an OPI necessary?
It is clear the Ethics process in the House is broken. Partisan
fighting has rendered the Committee ineffective. Additionally,
asking members to investigate their colleagues is a difficult
burden. With an OPI, the Director will present evidence to
the Committee, and all the Committee will have to decide is
whether the Director proves the ethics case.
Will an OPI eliminate the need for an Ethics Committee?
No. The Office will work within existing structures set up
to deal with unethical behavior. It is Congress’ Constitutional
duty to police itself. The Office will simply serve as a clearinghouse
for allegations. The Ethics Committee will still make decisions
about members’ ethical violations.
Who can file an ethics complaint with the office?
Anyone can file a complaint with the office for investigation.
Doesn’t this create incentive for partisan
charges being filed?
No. The process set up by this legislation has several checks
against this. First, the Director has to make a determination
if there is sufficient evidence to investigate a case. If
there is not, the Director can determine a charge to be frivolous,
and the individual who filed the complaint never will be allowed
to file again. Second, the Director has to tell the Committee
he has sufficient evidence to present a case. At both of these
points, the Committee has an opportunity to vote to stop the
investigation. To stop it, the vote must be two-thirds and
the majority must issue a public report explaining why they
are voting to stop the investigation. The voting minority
and the Director can also issue reports.
Will the Office have any other functions?
The Office will create a single database for lobbyist reports
required under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and make the database
publicly available over the Internet.
-30-
|
