If hubris were an Olympic sport, Juan Antonio Samaranch, president of the International Olympic Committee, would be standing on the gold-medal platform after the performance he gave Wednesday before a congressional committee. His blithe dismissal of the thought that he should personally suffer any punishment for his ruinous leadership of the Olympics strained credulity and prolonged that organization’s painful remaking.

Mr. Samaranch insisted that the scandals of the IOC’s recent past were behind it, as if the bribery, false scholarships, gift giving and other improprieties, connected particularly with the Salt Lake City Games of 2002 but clearly part of the IOC culture, could simply be waved away. After all, the IOC now has an ethics committee and 50 new reform measures to keep everyone in line. The trouble is, the IOC had rules against bribery before, but they didn’t stop the palm-greasing that seemed about as common there as steroids in the teams of the former East Germany.

That’s why Texas Rep. Joe Barton, a member of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, wasn’t far off Wednesday when he asked Mr. Samaranch to resign, to bring in “some new blood and some new leadership.” Rep. Barton’s remark undoubtedly was made more to make a point than create a job vacancy, but it is well-taken. The United States’ interest in the IOC is not only about upholding the law and protecting its athletes; U.S. taxpayers will contribute more than $100 million to Salt Lake City in new roads, tramways and other goodies as it prepares for the next Winter Games.

At the conclusion last spring of George Mitchell’s investigation into IOC misconduct, the former Maine senator was asked why his report did not include a call for Mr. Samaranch’s resignation. “If President Samaranch and the entire leadership of the IOC retires tomorrow and there were no other changes, the problems with the IOC would continue,” Sen. Mitchell replied. “If they continue in office, then everyone … has a right to expect they will institute structural changes promptly.”

Thomas Boswell, a sports columnist for The Washington Post, recently reported that there were two key structural changes to look for in deciding whether the IOC was serious: Did the reforms include term limits with no re-elections and did they keep the current leaders in their seats? The answer came a week ago — until an official hits age 70, he or she can be re-elected over and over and the old-boy network emerges pre-eminent.

As with the scandals, the problem with the reforms is one of self-interest. In that sense, Sen. Mitchell’s observations also work in reverse: If any number of reforms are put in place, but President Samaranch and the entire leadership of the IOC, which believes itself above the rules, remains, the problems with the IOC will continue.