Office Of Public Integrity

OFFICE OF PUBLIC INTEGRITY -- (Senate - January 18, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last night the Senate voted not to invoke cloture on the ethics and lobbying reform legislation we have been considering for the past couple of weeks. I come to the floor this morning to explain why I voted to continue debate on this bill to which, as the Presiding Officer knows, I am very committed and have worked very hard on in the past Congress.

First, then, let me emphasize that I remain committed to passing a strong lobbying reform and ethics bill. I have said before and I will repeat that before we can conduct the business of the people of this country, it is important that we reform our practices.

We need to strengthen the lobbying rules and the ethics rules to increase disclosure and to ban practices that might call into question the integrity of the decisions we make.

We need to assure the American people that the decisions we make are in their interests, that they are not tainted by undue influence or influence by special interests.

The underlying bill, S. 1, is the same bill that last year was the bipartisan product of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which I was privileged to chair. It is a good bill and it remains a good bill.

Over the past week and a half, we have debated and voted on amendments that have further improved the legislation before us, and the Senate is making good progress. However, as much progress as we have made, this bill has not reached the point where we should invoke cloture and cut off debate.

Some observers of the Senate may not understand that invoking cloture means that all amendments to this bill that are not germane can no longer be considered. The term and test for germaneness severely limits the types of amendments that can be considered, and many of these amendments--although they are not technically germane to the bill--are nevertheless very relevant to the bill. And perhaps the most important of these amendments is the Collins-Lieberman amendment that would create an Office of Public Integrity.

I know the Presiding Officer has been a strong supporter of an Office of Public Integrity as well, as has the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. The four of us have worked very hard on that concept.

I strongly believe we will have failed our test of producing a truly strong and complete ethics bill if we leave out the enforcement angle, if we do not create an Office of Public Integrity to conduct impartial, independent investigations of allegations against Members of Congress.

The other provisions of this bill are very important and very good, but we cannot ignore the enforcement piece.

We need an Office of Public Integrity.

I realize that leaders on both sides of the aisle disagree with me on this issue. I realize I am not likely to prevail. But surely we deserve a vote. But if we invoke cloture before there is a vote on the amendment that Senator Lieberman, the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Arizona and I have offered, our amendment will fall. It will not pass the strict germaneness test, even though it clearly is relevant to the underlying bill. I think that is wrong. I think we deserve a vote on the Office of Public Integrity. People feel strongly on both sides about this issue. It doesn't break down along party lines. As I said, the two leaders of the Senate are both opposed to the concept. But surely they ought to give us a vote. That is all I am asking. Let's have the Senate go on record on whether this independent office should be included in this bill.

I wish to make sure, since there was a lot of debate about this last year, that everyone understands the key role that the Ethics Committee would continue to play. All the Office of Public Integrity would do is to handle the investigative stage. It would still be up to the Ethics Committee to make critical decisions on whether to proceed with the case. The Ethics Committee would decide what is reported publicly. The Ethics Committee would decide whether action to penalize a Member should be taken. It would be the Ethics Committee that would still have tremendous authority in this whole process, but it would be combined with this independent Office of Public Integrity that would ensure an impartial investigation of allegations and, thus, would help restore public confidence in our ethics system. Isn't that what this debate is all about? It is about restoring public confidence that the decisions we are making are made in the best interests of the American people. I believe that an ethics bill without the Office of Public Integrity is an incomplete response to the concerns so clearly expressed by the American people in the elections last fall.

Again, the underlying bill is a good bill. It is essentially the bill that was reported by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last year. We have made it even better with some of the amendments we have adopted. Let's complete the task. Let's go the rest of the way down the road. Let's create an Office of Public Integrity. But if it is the will of this body not to create an Office of Public Integrity, the American people deserve to know that also.

So I want a vote. I am not going to vote to cut off debate on this bill until we get a vote on the Office of Public Integrity. The American people deserve to know where every Member of this body stands on this important issue. There are different views. There are legitimate views both for and against the office, but we deserve a vote on this issue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/