[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 14 (Wednesday, February 8, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Page S868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. OBAMA:
  S. 2259. A bill to establish an Office of Public Integrity in the 
Congress and a Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing new legislation to 
build on the excellent work my colleagues began with the Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act.
  That bill would close the revolving door between Capitol Hill and 
lobbying jobs. It would end all lobbyist-funded gifts, meals, and 
travel, and it would shine a bright light of monitoring and public 
disclosure on lobbyists' operations, secret conference committee 
negotiations and last-minute special-interest provisions.
  These are important steps forward that should be approved by this 
Congress and signed into law. The first bill I am introducing now 
builds on these steps by focusing on enforcement. We can pass all the 
new ethics rules in the world, but if we don't establish a body that 
can monitor and enforce those rules, it'll be easy to break them.
  My legislation will establish a nonpartisan, independent 
Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission that would investigate 
ethics violations and report their findings to the public.
  The idea of an independent Commission to conduct initial 
investigations is not new. It is modeled on successful efforts in a 
number of States including Kentucky, Florida, and Tennessee. Similar 
commissions in those States have a track record of working well and 
making the ethics enforcement process much more effective.
  My commission would be staffed with former judges and former members 
of Congress, and it would allow any citizen to report a possible ethics 
violation by lawmakers, staff, or lobbyists. It would have the 
authority to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, and provide 
public reports to the Senate Ethics Committee or Department of Justice 
so that any wrongdoing can be punished accordingly.
  To prevent this Commission from being manipulated for partisan 
political purposes, the bill establishes stiff sanctions for the filing 
of frivolous complaints, and prohibits the filing of complaints three 
months before an election.
  Although, the ultimate power to reprimand members would remain with 
the Ethics Committees in Congress and the Department of Justice, the 
new Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission would make these bodies 
more effective by removing political pressure from the initial fact-
finding phase of ethics investigations. In addition, the Commission's 
independent capacity to issue public findings would encourage the 
Ethics Committees to act.
  I am proud that this legislation has support across the political 
spectrum, earning the endorsement of both Common Cause and Norm 
Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. Ornstein said this about 
my enforcement bill: ``This approach to ethics enforcement is just the 
kind of balanced and reasonable alternative we need. . . . It deserves 
strong bipartisan support.''
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in creating this 
Commission to restore credibility to the body on the enforcement of 
ethics.
  I am also introducing legislation to build on the CLEAN UP Act (S. 
2179) that I introduced last month.
  The CLEAN UP Act was written to provide for greater transparency in 
the legislative process and in conference committees in particular. It 
has won the support of eight of my colleagues, and I hope the 
Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act that I am introducing today 
will gain their support, as well as the rest of my colleagues.
  The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act would require that 
information about all earmarks, including the name of the lawmaker 
requesting it and a justification of why they want it, be disclosed 72 
hours before they are considered by the full Senate.
  The bill would also place some common-sense limits on earmarks. 
Members would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have 
a financial interest in the project or its recipient. Earmarks also 
could not be used to secure promises from lawmakers in exchange for a 
vote on a bill. Finally, earmark recipients would have to disclose the 
amount that they spent on lobbyists in order to get their project 
passed. These earmark reforms won't solve every abuse, but the idea is 
this: if you're proud enough about an earmark to issue a press release 
about it, then you should be able to defend it to the public.
  Several of these ideas are contained in a bill introduced by Rep. 
David Obey. I am grateful for his leadership on this issue in the 
House.
  I know this is not the only proposal on earmarks before the Senate. 
But I believe this combines the best ideas without creating procedural 
roadblocks to legitimate projects in our communities. This is a 
balanced approach that I believe a majority of the Senate can--and 
should--support. Thank you.

                          ____________________