House Republican leaders are urging members to alter one of the chamber's fundamental ethics rules, which would make it harder for lawmakers to discipline a colleague.
The proposed change would essentially negate a general rule of conduct that the ethics committee has often cited in admonishing lawmakers — including Majority Leader Tom DeLay — for bringing discredit on the House even if their behavior was not covered by a specific regulation. Backers of the rule, adopted three decades ago, say it is important because the House's conduct code cannot anticipate every instance of questionable behavior that might reflect poorly on the chamber.
In a nutshell, there's currently a catch-all rule that states, "A member ... of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House." This rule is used when there's no specific rule against a given behavior that could be considered unethical.
During my Navy career, I was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which has as its final punitive provision Article 134, which permits service members to be convicted for acts prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and conduct which brings discredit upon the armed forces. I always thought that article was valuable to have for a specialized organization which requires higher standards of its members than those applied to society in general.
Acts punished under this article tend to fall into two categories: either the individual knew they shouldn't do it, but decided to go ahead anyway, or their standards and understanding are so far removed from those of the organization that they need to be taught a harsh lesson or they should no longer belong to the organization.
I think these principles should apply to Congress, as well. Their behavior should be judged against a standard that doesn't have predetermined, specific rules, but rather against a corporate understanding of morality. You know, like...ethics?
Maybe there's a good reason for this change, but I doubt it. Speaker Hastert and the rest of the Republican House leadership need to justify this rule change to Congress and the public. They need to tell us what's wrong with this rule, and why it should be eliminated.
Unless a public outcry builds over this, I don't expect that will happen. And if it does, I doubt that I'll be satisfied with their rationale.
