 |
| Representatives Push for Stronger Ethics Process in Congress |
March 08, 2006 |
| |
Shays, Meehan, Wilson, Gerlach, English Advocate for Non-partisan Office of Public Integrity
 Washington, D.C. – 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. |
|
|
|