How Long Will It Take to Decide? : Helms move raises issue of delay on Cranston

Claiming frustration over the glacial pace of the Senate Ethics Committee’s deliberations in the “Keating Five” case, Sen. Jesse Helms has made public what he implied was the panel’s long-awaited final confidential report on the matter.

The North Carolina Republican’s professed impatience is not without merit. The committee, of which Helms is a member, is months past the time when it should have made public its full findings regarding the activities of five senators who accepted contributions from Charles H. Keating Jr., head of the failed Lincoln Savings & Loan of Irvine and now on trial in a securities fraud case.

The report released by Helms accuses Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) of “reprehensible” behavior and calls for his censure by the full Senate. Last February, the Ethics Committee said that Cranston appeared to have seriously violated Senate standards of conduct by taking contributions from Keating at the same time that he was intervening with federal regulators on Keating’s behalf. Four other senators were found by the committee to have engaged in questionable conduct but not to have violated ethical rules. The committee said that the case against Cranston would be referred to the full Senate after he had another chance to respond to the allegations. Six months later the committee has yet to refer the Cranston case to the full Senate or to issue its final report.

The confidential report that Helms went public with--in violation of committee rules prohibiting the release of any “committee-sensitive information”--was written by Robert S. Bennett, the committee’s special counsel. In a rare bipartisan rebuke to Helms, committee Chairman Terry Sanford (D-N.C.) and Vice Chairman Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.) describe that report as no more than “a draft working document” that will be found to differ from the “final and authentic report” of the committee. The Bennett report, in sum, may turn out to be far from the last word that Helms implies.

Cranston, who has announced he won’t seek re-election next year, has cried foul at Helms’ action, not without reason. But the fact remains that Helms has raised a legitimate question about the inexplicable dilatoriness of the Ethics Committee. After 18 months of investigation and 26 days of public hearings, that body still apparently finds it beyond its capacity to agree on and issue a comprehensive report about the behavior of a high elected official. It has yet to recommend to the Senate what if any action should be taken against Cranston.

This is not a minor matter. The collapse of Lincoln S&L;, part of the larger savings and loan scandal, could by itself cost taxpayers as much as $2 billion. Cranston’s solicitation from Keating of contributions totaling $994,000 at the same time he was trying to shield Keating from regulatory scrutiny constituted a flagrant misuse of office. That much has long been clear. The mystery now is how much longer the public will have to wait before the Ethics Committee finally delivers its ultimate judgment on this sordid affair.