Legislative Transparency And Accountability Act of 2007

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - January 09, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, today the Senate once again considers significant legislation to reform ethical practices and lobbying practices. Any sense of deja vu among my colleagues is understandable, for the bill before us, S. 1, is identical to the bill passed by the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 in March of last year. That bill was the bipartisan product of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Because it never became law and because the issues that it addressed have only grown more troubling, the bill stands before us reincarnated but still very much needed.

The recent elections took place in the shadow of far too many revelations of questionable or even downright illegal conduct by Members of Congress. In reaction to those scandals, the American people sent a clear message to Congress that they had lost confidence in their Government. You may ask, Why does it matter? Why does it matter if the American people have confidence in their Government officials? It matters because without the trust of the American people, we cannot tackle the major issues facing this country. As long as our constituents are convinced that the decisions we are making are tainted by special influences or undue influence, then we simply cannot accomplish the work of this Nation.

I think it is appropriate that the first bill that is brought before this Chamber to be debated and considered is one that would reform the lobbying and ethics rules to increase disclosure and to ban practices that might be called into question or create an appearance of wrongdoing. We need to assure the American people that the decisions we make are decisions of integrity, in which their interests are put first.

It is important to remember that the conduct of most Members of Congress and their staffs is beyond reproach. I believe the vast majority of people serving in the House and the Senate are here for the right reason. They are here because they care deeply about their country and they want to contribute to the formulation of public policy they believe will improve the lives of the American people.

The same can be said for the conduct of most lobbyists. In fact, lobbying--whether done on behalf of the business community, an environmental organization, a children's advocacy group, or any other cause--can often provide Members of Congress with useful information and analysis. That information and analysis aids but does not dictate the decisionmaking process.

Unfortunately, today the word ``lobbying' too often conjures up images of expensive paid vacations masquerading as fact-finding trips, special access the average citizen can never have, and undue influence that leads to tainted decisions. We cannot underestimate the corrosive effect this perception has on the public's confidence in the legislative process.

One of the most important functions of the bill before us is to increase transparency, make it evident what is going on, how our decisions are made. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once noted, ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant.' That, indeed, is the premise of this bill. It calls for greatly increased disclosure. It provides, for example, for a searchable, accessible public database where information on lobbying contacts and filings will be

maintained and disclosed. It requires far more detailed disclosure of lobbyist activities in more frequent filings under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and it ensures that this information is made readily available to the public via the Internet. The knowledge that the public will be able to scrutinize in detail the activities of a lobbying firm and contacts between Members and lobbyists will help to provide much needed transparency in this whole area. In addition, the enhanced disclosures will allow citizens to decide for themselves what is acceptable and what is not.

This bill also contains some needed reforms of earmarks. Too many times an earmark--the designation of taxpayer dollars for a specific purpose--has been included in the final version of an appropriations bill, or another bill, despite the fact that it was never discussed or debated in either the Senate or the House. By requiring that any earmarks in legislation disclose the name of the Member of Congress who proposed the earmark and also requiring an explanation of the essential governmental purpose of the earmark, and by making this information available on the Internet, this legislation will shed sunlight on the source of and the reason for earmarks and allow them to be fairly evaluated.

I go through a very rigorous process when I decide to press for earmarks. I make sure there is community support, I review them in depth, and I am going to be very comfortable having my name attached to earmarks that I propose. In fact, I hope then that will help my constituents know I am working very hard for a project with which I agree.

It is not the process of earmarks per se that is a problem. The problem is when earmarks are sneaked into the final version of legislation without public debate, without a vote, without any consideration, and no one is sure where the earmark came from, who sponsored it or, in some cases, even who the beneficiary is going to be. That is the problem. That is what this bill would cure.

The enhanced disclosure in this legislation not only applies to the activities of lobbyists but to our own activities as well. I am pleased this legislation takes steps to eliminate the practice of anonymous holds on Senate legislation. This occurs when a Member notifies the cloakroom that he or she wishes to block a piece of legislation from coming to the floor and yet does so anonymously. I can tell you as someone who has had to deal with anonymous holds time and again, it is very frustrating when you can't find out who is holding up your legislation, why they are holding it up, and you cannot begin to resolve whatever the problems are. The hallmark of this body should be free and open debate. A process that allows a secret hold to kill a bill without a word of debate on the Senate floor is contrary to that principle.

The bill also includes some important provisions to slow the so-called revolving door problem, where Members of Congress and high-ranking staff leave their jobs in the Senate or the House one day and then turn around and lobby the institution they once served. Once again, the limitations in this bill get to the heart of the image problem here and help to ensure the integrity of our decisions.

Many of our former colleagues have become lobbyists. There is nothing wrong with that. But there should be a cooling-off period before they come back.

I notice my colleague from Connecticut has now arrived on the floor. Through the Chair, I ask my colleague if he wants me to finish my statement or if he wants to do his now, since he was first in the queue?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. I thank my colleague from Connecticut.

I am also very pleased to join Senators Reid, McConnell, Feinstein, Lieberman, and Bennett in cosponsoring a bipartisan substitute amendment that will be laid down this afternoon. This substitute amendment will further strengthen the legislation we have before us. I thank all of my colleagues for working together to achieve this goal.

Nevertheless, I make clear, while I strongly support the legislation before the Senate as well as the substitute, the legislation could be further strengthened in a very important way.

Last year, Senators LIEBERMAN, MCCAIN and I proposed an Office of Public Integrity. That concept is also included in another bill that was sponsored this year by Senators McCain, Lieberman, Feingold, and myself. I anticipate Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, and I will be offering this proposal during the course of this debate.

I will debate that issue later at the appropriate time, but right now let me say any true comprehensive reform of our lobbying and ethics rules should include an independent investigatory body. The American people view the way we investigate ethics violations as an inherently conflicted process. Think about it--and I know the Presiding Officer has a law enforcement background--we are our own advisers, our own investigators, our own prosecutors, our own judges, our own juries. We play every role.

As good a job as a Member of the Ethics Committee in the Senate has done in overseeing the conduct of Members and their staff, it remains difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee the system works in a way that gives the public confidence that there is an impartial, thorough review of allegations against Members of Congress when we are fulfilling every role in the process.

Now, I respect and understand the constitutional requirement that Members of Congress sit in judgment of one another and our proposal does not change. The Office of Public Integrity would bring the results of its investigation to the Ethics Committee, which would then decide whether to proceed further, whether there is an actual violation, and what kind of remedy, if any, is necessary. That is an important provision. I look forward to working with the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Wisconsin, and the Senator from Arizona in that area.

We need also to make sure we stop having trips that are paid vacations. However, we don't want to interfere with true fact-finding trips. Those are generally useful to our work. We are close to working out the right balance in that area.

I look forward to passing effective legislation that will help to restore the public's confidence in the Senate. By scheduling this bill first on our agenda we have recognized the importance of these issues to the American people. We need to act without delay to help restore their faith in how we do business.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/