Text 1247, 121 rader
Skriven 2006-06-19 15:38:24 av Alan Hess
Ärende: truth in lawmaking
==========================
A truth in lawmaking requirement?  Would such a thing be good, and reduce pork?
*********


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.congress19jun19,0,561427.
story?coll=bal-pe-opinion

From the Baltimore Sun
Truth in lawmaking


By Charles Kolb

June 19, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Congress responded to the recent corporate accounting, financial
and governance scandals by imposing new legal obligations on publicly traded
companies.

One of the most noted provisions of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley legislation
requires chief executive officers and chief financial officers to certify
quarterly that they have personally reviewed their companies' earnings reports
and that the financial information they contain is accurate.

These certifications are considered vital in assuring the investing public that
they can rely on companies' accurate, transparent reporting before they make
important financial decisions. Failure to certify, or making inaccurate
statements, can be punished severely by fines, criminal penalties or both.

For much of the last year, the spotlight has shifted to the openness and
transparency of congressional decision-making. One congressman has admitted to
accepting outright bribes; the former House majority leader is under indictment
and faces a criminal trial for allegedly improper campaign fundraising in
Texas; an unprecedented number of legislative earmarks costing billions of
dollars are now inserted into legislation with little or no congressional
debate; and the unfolding scandal of lobbyist Jack Abramoff highlights the
symbiotic relationship of a Washington cottage industry that involves members
of Congress, lobbyists and corporate America.

In the wake of the corporate scandals, the public - and Congress - demanded
greater accountability from our public companies. Now, the public is directing
similar accountability questions toward Congress:

? Why is the structural federal budget deficit out of control?

? Why was last year's transportation bill riddled with over 6,000 "earmarks,"
which included that notorious "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska?

? Why is it that nearly every year - much to the professed shock of members of
Congress - items appear in legislation that were inserted by staff at the
request of special interest groups that were unknown to the elected members?

? With the typical congressional work-week falling between midday Tuesday and
midday Thursday, how can members adequately carry out their legislative
deliberations and oversight duties?

? Why are some bills numbering into many hundreds of pages presented to members
of Congress within a day or a few days of a scheduled vote?

? How many members have the time or take the time to read the bills on which
they vote?

A vote by a member of Congress can have implications - positive and negative -
that are far more consequential for the country than a CEO's quarterly earnings
report. The requirement that chief executive officers and chief financial
officers read, understand and publicly certify their reports is intended to
ensure transparency, accuracy and accountability in the nation's equity
markets. Shouldn't these principles also apply to the nation's legislative
process?

What if members of Congress were subject to a similar obligation before they
cast their votes? We pay members of the House and Senate $165,200 a year.
Members of the leadership earn even more.

Is it asking too much that members of Congress know what it is they are voting
for or against? In many instances when votes are cast, representatives from the
whips' offices greet members at the door with the leadership's recommendation
on how to vote. This process can hardly be called "deliberative."

So here is a simple, Sarbanes-Oxley-type solution that Congress should impose
on itself as a means of promoting accountability and reassuring a highly
skeptical public: When a member votes on final legislation, the representative
must certify publicly that he or she has read the legislation in question and
understands what is in the bill.

With this approach, members could no longer claim they were surprised by what
is in a bill. Legislation likely would be shorter and drafted with greater
clarity. Special interest "perks" or earmarks would be more readily identified
and scrutinized.

Members are now routinely monitored for their attendance at roll-call votes,
but are they really serving the American people when they haven't even read the
bill on which they are voting?

The implementation would be relatively simple. Members of the House, who vote
electronically by cards, would have two cards that could be inserted when
voting. One card handles the "yes" or "no" vote and a second would certify that
the voting member read and understood the legislation in advance of casting a
vote.

In the Senate, where the roll is called orally, senators could indicate
verbally when voting whether they had read the bill and understood it. Both
"votes" would be reported in the Congressional Record. Of course, a member
could still vote "yes" or "no" without also making the public certification as
to his or her familiarity with the bill, but doing so might raise political
questions (and competition) back home.

Enforcement would be automatic through instant public accountability and
greater transparency. The public's trust of Congress also would improve. There
would be no need for fines or criminal penalties. The voters could readily
impose their own sanctions, if necessary, the next time they enter the voting
booth.

Charles Kolb, who served in the administration of President George H. W. Bush,
is president of the Committee for Economic Development. The views expressed are
his own. His e-mail is charles.kolb@ced.org.

Copyright + 2006, The Baltimore Sun | Get Sun home delivery

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Try the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcome (1:261/1000)