Legislative Tranparency and Accountability Act of 2006--Continued

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2006--CONTINUED

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I expect Senator McCain will be on the floor very shortly to speak in favor of the amendment. While we are waiting for his arrival, let me make a few more comments on the purpose of this amendment.

Even though we are so fortunate to have the Presiding Officer as the chairman of the Ethics Committee and some of our finest Members serving on the Ethics Committee, the fact is, that does not change the public's frustration or doubt about the process. The public views the process as inherently conflicted. The public believes that investigations of our colleagues by our colleagues raise obvious conflicts of interests.

No matter the incredible integrity of the Members who serve on the Ethics Committee, they simply cannot escape that problem of public perception. That is why Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and I have attempted to come up with a new approach in our amendment that is designed to restore the public's confidence in the ethics system. We do so by creating the new Senate Office of Public Integrity. This office would be headed by a Director, appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate upon the joint recommendation of the majority and minority leaders of the Senate. This individual would have a 5-year term and could be reappointed. This is not a lifetime appointment of someone who could somehow get out of control. This person would have to have a background suitable for the position, and it would take a joint agreement of the majority and minority leaders to appoint the person to the 5-year term.

I pointed out in my comments this morning that our proposal is not the same as the proposal advanced in the House by Congressmen SHAYS and MEEHAN, regardless of the merits of that proposal. It is not the version created or proposed by Senators OBAMA and REID earlier. In fact, we have refined it from the proposal offered during the Homeland Security Committee's markup to try to accommodate some concerns that were raised by the Presiding Officer. But what this proposal does is recognize that the public does not have confidence in the current system.

We do not undermine the authority of the Ethics Committee. We recognize and appreciate the hard work of the Ethics Committee, and we realize the Ethics Committee alone should retain the ability to decide what sanctions may be appropriate for a Member who has been shown to have committed some misconduct. The Ethics Committee is involved every step of the way, as a safeguard, as a check or balance.

But I would ask my colleagues to consider allegations that may be raised against a Member and that are investigated by an independent Office of Public Integrity. Now, that office comes back and says: There is no merit to these allegations. That judgment is going to be readily accepted by the public because it has been rendered not by a group of us sitting in judgment of our colleague but, rather, by an independent Office of Public Integrity.

Again, if the Office of Public Integrity found grounds to continue the investigation, found probable cause, conducted an investigation and came to the Ethics Committee with its findings, it is the Ethics Committee and not the

Office of Public Integrity that has the decision to make on what sanctions, if any, are appropriate.

I think we have struck the right balance. I think we have sustained the authority of the Ethics Committee, but we have also ensured that the investigations will be carried out by an independent Office of Public Integrity that would have the credibility to carry out this kind of sensitive investigation. After all, it is very difficult to investigate one of our colleagues.

We are fortunate because we know each other in this body. We have a great deal of regard for one another. We are friends with the people with whom we serve. All of that helps make the Senate a more collegial body, helps us to get our work done. But it also raises questions in the mind of the public about whether serious allegations are independently and thoroughly investigated. I believe that is the advantage of the approach we put forward.

This is a modest proposal. We are not suggesting the Office of Public Integrity should provide rulings on ethics matters, providing advice. We are not suggesting the Office of Public Integrity would decide sanctions to be imposed on Members. We build in that that is the job of the Ethics Committee. We do not change that. But we do try to deal with the perception that the current process is inherently conflicted.

Let me run through how the process would work. Essentially, the office would do much of the investigative work that is now conducted by the staff of the Ethics Committee, with the notable exception, which Senator Lieberman mentioned, of ruling on requests for privately funded travel. The office would not provide advice or counsel. It would not issue advisory opinions. It would not have the power to enforce subpoenas. It could not make public the product of its investigations. And it could not directly refer matters to Federal or State authorities, such as the Department of Justice. All of those authorities would remain with the Ethics Committee.

I make that point because, perhaps due to the many different versions of this concept, as advanced in the House or by outside groups or by other Members, there is a lot of confusion over the duties and responsibilities of the Office of Public Integrity. So I want to make clear what the powers of this office would be.

What the office would do is accept complaints, and within 30 days of receiving a complaint would make an initial determination as to whether the complaint should be dismissed or whether an investigation is warranted. If the office dismisses a complaint, it may refer the case to the Ethics Committee to determine if the complaint is frivolous and whether sanctions should be imposed on the individual or the outside group filing the complaint. I think that is a big improvement on the current system.

If, after the initial inquiry, the office finds sufficient grounds to open an investigation, it would provide notice to the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee would then have 10 days to overrule that determination.

I want to make that point very clear, that the Ethics Committee can decide to overrule the decision of the Office of Public Integrity to pursue the investigation further or the Ethics Committee could decide to take no action at all, in which case the Office of Public Integrity, having found sufficient grounds to open an investigation, would proceed. If the office finds probable cause that a violation has occurred, the Ethics Committee would then have up to 30 days in which to overrule that determination or let it stand. If not overruled, the office then presents the case and the evidence to the Ethics Committee to vote on whether any rules or any other standards of conduct have been violated.

Again, you see that the Ethics Committee is involved at every single stage. There is a report from the Office of Public Integrity and an opportunity for the committee to overrule the Office of Public Integrity. That opportunity is always available.

Mr. President, I do expect Senator McCain will be joining us shortly. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that it be charged to both sides.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I found this debate to be both interesting and ironic. We have heard the proposed Office of Public Integrity described on the one hand as being a potentially out-of-control, independent counsel/special prosecutor. Then we have heard it described as a toothless entity that simply duplicates the work of the Ethics Committee and would have to check with the Ethics Committee at its every stage of the investigation.

In fact, neither characterization is an accurate one. Perhaps the best way to think of the proposed Office of Public Integrity is that it would be the investigative arm of the Ethics Committee. It would be an entity that would conduct a thorough, impartial, credible investigation of allegations and then report back to the Ethics Committee. It is essentially controlled by the Ethics Committee but has the ability to do independent investigations.

It is neither an out-of-control special prosecutor nor is it a powerless office that simply duplicates the work being done and that would be done by the Ethics Committee anyway. In fact, one of the opponents of this amendment said that they would create a duplicate investigation. I don't understand how that conclusion can be reached. There is nothing in this amendment that would require the Ethics Committee to conduct a parallel investigation, and why would they? We have already heard the Chairman of the Ethics Committee say that they do not do an investigation when there is a parallel Justice Department investigation going on. Why would the Ethics Committee choose to duplicate the work of the Office of Public Integrity? This bill does not mandate that the Ethics Committee throw all common sense overboard. So that argument simply does not hold water.

We have also heard it alleged that the Office of Public Integrity would make public information that is now confidential. But look at the plain language of the amendment. I am going to read it into the RECORD because this information to the contrary has been advanced on the Senate floor. Here is what it says: ``Disclosure.'' It is on page 11 of the amendment.

Information or testimony received, or the contents of a complaint or the fact of its filing, or recommendations made by the Director to the committee, may be publicly disclosed by the Director or the staff of the Office only--

I am going to underscore that, Mr. President.

--only if authorized by the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate.

I don't know how it could be more clear, that the decision on disclosing information on the investigation cannot be made unilaterally by the Office of Public Integrity. Under our amendment, the Ethics Committee, not the Office of Public Integrity, has the sole authority to determine what parts of an investigation, if any, become a matter of public record. The OPI has no such authority. The language could not be more clear on that point.

Second, although a vote of the Ethics Committee to overrule the Office of Public Integrity would be made public, that is because such a vote would end the case. In other words, the Ethics Committee would not be voting publicly multiple times on a particular investigation at every stage--contrary to the information, or the argument that was advanced earlier by the distinguished chairman of the Ethics Committee. This is how it would work. The Ethics Committee would vote only once, either to overrule the Office of Public Integrity, which it can do at any stage of the investigation, or at the end of the investigation the committee would vote on a final determination of whether a violation has occurred.

I realize that Members have very strong views on this issue. I realize there are legitimate differences of opinion. I recognize that this is a difficult issue. But I hope that Members will look at the actual language of the amendment that Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and I have advanced. I recognize that there is a reason there is considerable confusion. There are all different versions of entities similar to the Office of Public Integrity that we are proposing. But we have drafted our proposal very carefully not to undermine the good work of the Ethics Committee, not to take away the final decisionmaking from the Ethics Committee but to promote public confidence in the integrity and the credibility of investigations by having this office, the Office of Public Integrity, conduct the investigation.

Will the Presiding Officer inform me how much time is remaining on the proponents' side.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we are faced with a choice. We have the opportunity to pass significant legislation to strengthen our lobbying disclosure laws to ban practices that raise questions about undue influence of special interests and to strengthen the enforcement of those laws. Even without the Office of Public Integrity, I believe we have produced a good bill. But I believe that our legislation will be incomplete if we do not act to strengthen the enforcement process. I believe, after much study, that the best way to do this is to create an Office of Public Integrity.

That is not in any way to indicate a lack of appreciation for the hard work of the fine members of our Senate Ethics Committee under the leadership of two individuals with great integrity. I understand that it is a thankless job to serve on the Ethics Committee, and contrary to the comment that was made earlier in the debate, I believe that this office, by conducting the investigative portion, by assisting the Ethics Committee in investigating allegations, would actually be of great assistance to the Ethics Committee.

The chairman of the Ethics Committee has expressed, time and again, his frustration that the public does not know of the work the Ethics Committee does. It doesn't realize how seriously the investigations and allegations are treated; that it doesn't appreciate how difficult it is to pursue allegations against Members with whom one serves. I suggest that this amendment offers great assistance to the Ethics Committee. If there is an Office of Public Integrity which is conducting independent investigations and reporting its findings to the Ethics Committee, I think that enhances the public's understanding of the process, the public's acceptance of the process, and the credibility of the investigations.

We are dealing with a reality that public confidence in Congress is very low. It is perilously low. It makes it difficult for us to pass legislation because the public believes that oftentimes our decisions are not in the public interest but, rather, beholden to some private interest. That saddens me because I know the people I serve with are individuals of great integrity, and the vast majority of elected officials in Washington and elsewhere are in public service for all the right reasons. But that perception is a reality we need to deal with. The best way to deal with it, in my judgment, is to pass strong, comprehensive legislation which will help repair the frayed bonds between the public and those who serve the public.

The Office of Public Integrity is an integral part of achieving that goal. There is a lot of opposition to this amendment. I don't delude myself to the contrary. I have learned organizational change in Washington is the hardest kind of change to accomplish. I learned that when Senator Lieberman and I led the legislation restructuring and reforming our intelligence community, the most sweeping reforms in 50 years. I have learned trying to change the organization of Congress or the way Congress works makes that reorganization of our intelligence community look easy.

I recognize this is an uphill fight, but I believe it is the right thing to do. I hope our colleagues, before casting their vote today, will take the time to read the actual language of the amendment and to think about what we need to do to repair the breach between those who are elected and the people we serve, to promote and strengthen public confidence in the political process. I believe if our colleagues do that and if they care about restoring public confidence in Congress, they will support the amendment we have offered.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, shortly we will vote on the Wyden-Grassley amendment. First, we will vote on the Collins-Lieberman-McCain amendment which is the second-degree amendment. I applaud the initiative of Senators WYDEN and GRASSLEY. When this amendment first came up, I spoke in favor of it. I believe we do need to end the practice of secret holds.

I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the Wyden-Grassley amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. COLLINS. Let me say a few final words about the amendment Senators MCCAIN, LIEBERMAN, and I have proposed to create an office of public integrity. We are about to vote on that amendment, and then we will proceed to vote on Senator Wyden's amendment.

I believe our proposal has struck the right balance. I draw this conclusion, in part, because my colleagues who are opposed to the amendment are arguing two conflicting extremes, and both obviously cannot be right. On the one hand, some of my colleagues are disparaging the Office of Public Integrity by calling it an independent counsel, by implying that it would be a too powerful, out-of-control entity that would conduct unfair investigations and put Members in peril.

On the other hand, we have also heard colleagues during this debate say that the Office of Public Integrity would not have enough power because it can be overruled by the Ethics Committee. These two conflicting and inconsistent positions suggest that, in fact, we have struck the right balance. We have respected the role and the authority of the Ethics Committee, but we have strengthened the credibility of the investigative part of an inquiry into allegations of wrongdoing.

At the end of the day, the debate and vote on our proposal comes down to a simple question. That is, what are we going to do to strengthen public confidence in the integrity of this institution? Regardless of how fine a job the Ethics Committee has done--and it has performed well--the fact remains that public confidence in Congress is near an all-time low. I believe the legislation that we have brought forth to strengthen our lobbying disclosure laws, to prohibit practices that raise conflicts of interest and, with our amendment, to strengthen the enforcement mechanism is critical to strengthening the bond between the people we serve and those of us privileged to be elected to public office.

I urge my colleagues to support the modest proposal for a well balanced Office of Public Integrity.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/