[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1667-1668]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       OFFICE OF PUBLIC INTEGRITY

  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

[[Page 1668]]

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.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to speak for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________