Legislative Transparency And Accountability Act of 2007

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - January 16, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last week, I was very pleased to join with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, in offering an amendment to this bill to create an Office of Public Integrity. The American people view the way we enforce ethics requirements as an inherently conflicted process. We are our own advisers, our own investigators, our own prosecutors, our own judges, our own juries, and even though some of our finest Members serve on our Ethics Committee, they cannot escape that perception, they cannot escape the process, nor can they convince the public that the process works to ensure an independent, impartial investigation of allegations brought against Members of Congress.

Last March, Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and myself offered an amendment designed to restore the public's confidence in our ethics process by creating a new Senate Office of Public Integrity. Although that amendment failed, I hope our colleagues will take another look at the rationale for this office. I hope our colleagues have looked at the election results in which the public clearly stated its concern over allegations of corruption. The adoption of our amendment is the single most important step we could take to help restore the public's confidence in the integrity of the decisions we make.

I am not saying the amendment the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Arizona and I have proposed is perfect. We are very open to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have suggestions for how to improve our amendment. We incorporated a lot of those suggestions into the proposal we brought before the full Senate last March.

I wanted to point out some basic information about this office. First, it would be headed by a Director jointly appointed by the majority and the minority leaders of the Senate. So those who fear that somehow this Director and this office would be partisan should look at that provision that requires a joint appointment by the Democratic and the Republican leaders. We preserve a very important and strong role for the Ethics Committee, and I believe that, combined, these two entities can help restore public confidence in the independence and impartiality of ethics oversight and enforcement.

I want to take a moment to underline this point about the role of the Ethics Committee. It would be the Ethics Committee that decides if a complaint were frivolous, the Ethics Committee that would decide whether to enforce a subpoena, the Ethics Committee that would determine when and whether investigatory materials are made public. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding that somehow this office would operate completely divorced from the Ethics Committee and on automatic pilot. It would be the Ethics Committee that would continue to provide advice, both informally and through advisory opinions. It would be the Ethics Committee, not the Director of the Senate Office of Public Integrity, who would have sole discretion on what is reported publicly if the committee overrules a decision of the office.

At bottom, our amendment creates an independent, transparent process for initiating and conducting investigations of possible ethical and other violations. I think this is important. We haven't had the problems on this side of the Congress that have troubled our colleagues on the House side, but I think we still need to act to put into place a process that would guarantee to the public an impartial and independent investigation of allegations--not of the final judgment, not of the remedies or punishment that is found by the Ethics Committee to be appropriate but the investigative stage. I suggest that not only would this help restore public confidence in the process, but it would also be helpful to Members because if an independent office concludes there is no merit to allegations lodged against Members of Congress, the public is much more likely to accept that conclusion than if it is made by other Members of the same body who serve with us each day.

I know some of our colleagues are not comfortable generally with the concept of an independent office with any investigatory powers. But I don't believe we are creating some sort of monster, some sort of out-of-control special prosecutor because we impose on the process the discipline and the authority, the ultimate authority of the Ethics Committee. But I do believe we would be creating a process that would help restore the badly tarnished view the public has of our ability to investigate ourselves.

I respect and I honor the constitutional role that says we sit in judgment of our peers, our colleagues, in both bodies. I am not talking about disturbing that role in any way. Instead, what I am saying is it would help restore public confidence, when serious allegations are lodged against a Member of Congress, if we were to create this independent investigative office. There are many safeguards and checks and balances we have carefully built into the amendment that the Senator from Connecticut and I have brought before this body. I urge our colleagues to actually read the amendment and to take a look at it closely. If there are particular concerns, I ask that they work with us to improve our amendment. But what is not acceptable to me is for this amendment not to receive a vote by this body. The Members are familiar with it. I believe it is time for us to go on the record.

I don't think that shoveling off this amendment in the hope that it will come up at some future date is the way to proceed. I think our amendment is well crafted and well balanced. I believe it would make a major difference in the process and help to restore the public's confidence in the whole ethics system. I believe it is carefully crafted so that it does not diminish the very important role of our Ethics Committee, a role I respect and honor, but this amendment would help accomplish the goal of building the public's trust.

Why is this so important? Because if the public does not trust our ethics system, it will not trust the decisions we are making on vital issues--the issues that shape the future of this country. The American people deserve to know that our decisions are not tainted by outside undue influence. They deserve to know we are putting the interests of the American people and our constituents above any other interests.

I have often said, and I will repeat it, that I respect the important role lobbyists play in the process. They provide us with useful information, whether they are representing a children's advocacy group, the business community, a labor organization, or a public interest association. That input is important to us as long as it aids but does not dictate our decisions. It is important that the process be transparent.

There is much in this bill, which we worked very hard on in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last year, that improves the transparency of the process, but we need to add the enforcement piece. We need to make sure not only that we ban inappropriate practices, not only that we have full and more accessible disclosure, but we need the enforcement piece as well. That is what my distinguished colleague from Connecticut as well as the Senators from Arizona and Illinois have proposed, and I believe it is the missing piece that will make already good legislation an excellent bill.

Most of all, it is important that we go on record, that we have an opportunity for a vote because, after all, that is part of the process, too: ensuring that Members express their views and that it is done in a forthright manner. I hope very much we will have an opportunity to have a rollcall vote on this important amendment.

It has been a great pleasure to work with the new chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on this issue, as on every issue on which I have worked with the Senator from Connecticut.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/