Ethics Watchdog Targets Congressional Sleepovers

WASHINGTON — A Washington ethics watchdog says it's time for Congress to crack down on lawmakers who sleep in their offices rather than pay for a place to live.

Reacting to a surge in congressmen bunking down in their work spaces, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wants the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate whether the politicians are getting an unfair tax break and violating their own rules by making personal use of public resources.

"House office buildings are not dorms or frat houses," Melanie Sloan, the group's executive director, said Thursday. "If members didn't want to find housing in Washington, they shouldn't have run for Congress in the first place."

For years, at least a few lawmakers have slept on couches and cots in their offices to avoid long commutes or pricey Washington rents. Some see it as a badge of honor, a commitment to frugality and hard work, and a reminder to constituents they don't consider Washington home.

CREW cited media reports that more than 30 lawmakers, all men, are now doing it. Sloan thinks the real total could be as many as 40 or 50 after a wave of budget-conscious, anti-Washington freshmen won seats in November.

Rep. Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, has slept in his office for years. Ryan, R-Wis., brushed aside questions about the complaint.

"People have been doing it for decades," he said. "I work until midnight every night. I get up at six every morning."

Another longtime office-sleeper, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., said he'll move out if the rules change. But he said it is more convenient for him to stay in the Capitol complex.

A spokesman for the Office of Congressional Ethics declined to comment except to say that the office had received CREW's letter, which maintains that the free living arrangements amount to a taxable benefit that should be reported to the IRS. Several congressional officials said they weren't aware of any rules or guidance specifically addressing the matter.

Sloan said that aside from the legal and rules questions, she has heard reports from congressional staffers about uncomfortable work environments.

"Especially if you're a woman and you're working late and your boss is there getting ready for bed, that seems designed for discomfort," she said.

Besides, she added, "who wants to run into a member of Congress in need of a shower wandering the halls in sweats or a robe?"

___

Online:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: http://www.citizensforethics.org/

___

Online:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/

Comments

[hawhite2000]

03:47 AM on 02/17/2011

If I get a job in another state and don't want to rent or buy a new place to live locally, should I feel that my employer is going to be ok with me living in their place of business?

[LSP]

08:52 PM on 02/16/2011

They make about $175,000 per year. If they can't afford an apartment then maybe they should get an additional job like everyone else who is struggling to make ends meet. And the excuse that they're doing it to get more work done for their constituents just doesn't fly.

They're freeloading off the government and this entitlement is going to have to be cut from the budget. Sorry.

[ZeraLee]

05:32 PM on 02/14/2011

One or two could be overlooked, but dozens are another matter. Whether it is ethical or not, the facilities were not designed or intended for residence. They are squatters living on public property, on the public dime. They should be charged rent. They should be charged for additional utilities, security, and janitorial services.

They are not showing frugality, they are squandering public resources for personal gain. They are demonstrating their obliviousness to the consequences of scaling - how the conditions change as the scale of something changes.

They should be using private sector housing instead of this turning the United States Capital into a commune.

[kgj08]

01:41 AM on 02/14/2011

This is not to mention the fact that the cost of the office buildings is totally a sunk cost to the American taxpayer. Additional use of utilities would be minimal.

[kgj08]

01:39 AM on 02/14/2011

Disallowing members of Congress from sleeping in their offices would only add to the barriers average, middle class citizens must hurdle in order to hold public office. What percentage of Americans could afford to rent a DC apartment in addition to their regular mortgage, or pay for a hotel every night they work? 1 to 2%?

Closing down the offices to sleeping would only close opportunities for Americans to serve our country in office.

[mabinog]

08:14 PM on 02/12/2011

"People have been doing it for decades," he said. "I work until midnight every night. I get up at six every morning."

Yeah those six hour fundraisers and lobbyist parties just eat up your evenings.....

[noot]

07:58 PM on 02/12/2011

We already pay for the office space they use back in their home states.

[AgingLady]

07:34 PM on 02/12/2011

Probably only there Tues and Wed nights. They schedule nothing for Mon and Fri so they can be in their districts (as in home) the rest of the time. We could have TSA check their offices after midnight!

[myrtle1909]

05:06 PM on 02/12/2011

Who pays the maid service for these sleep-overs?

[sushi27]

09:45 PM on 02/12/2011

You do

[suzeejc]

04:47 PM on 02/12/2011

Suckin' off the hind ...... of the government once again. This is government space, not their space, they are not renting this space, we're paying for it. It's intended to conduct business not sleep to save one own's pocket change. I could say I don't care but these politicians are in everyone's pockets, let's make them pay too. If I go to Washington, I have to pay for a hotel room. There are plenty available near their complex. It's not a long commute.

[southernman]

01:26 PM on 02/12/2011

Get all Congressmen off the government dole

[OldCowboy]

11:29 AM on 02/12/2011

Much ado about nothing. Stupid.

[southernman]

01:27 PM on 02/12/2011

you should introduce yourself before your comment not afterward

[sdsteve]

11:23 AM on 02/12/2011

Give me a break. Is THIS all we have to complain about? Would you rather have them take a bribe to have enough money for a DC apartment, or get an illegal contribution by sleeping at C Street? Where are the Murphy beds when we need them?

[King Joffe Joffer]

09:32 AM on 02/12/2011

People have commented that this is not a big deal and a waste of time complaining about this practice. I disagree. Charlie Rangel used his congressional stationary to ask for money for his Rangel center. That wasnt a big deal, but it was an ethics violation and he was censured for it. Rules are rules. Do we really want congress to pick and choose what rules they are going to follow and which they can disregard? They make plenty of money, I dont want to hear they cant afford housing in DC.

[sushi27]

09:50 PM on 02/12/2011

I totally agree - but be careful 'alvdh1' called me every name in the book for saying so - I believe it was "petty and stupid teapartier that is bored with life". Guess they all think it's okay for congress to only follow rules they like, cause they don't make enough money, lol.

[Edward Standley]

09:27 AM on 02/12/2011

I'm thinking "Blockbuster Sitcom" here. I just wrote the first few episodes in my head just sitting here.