[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 30 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1926-S1928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PORT SECURITY
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to suggest to Democratic Senators
to oppose cloture today. I will say to all assembled that the vote
under the rules is to occur tomorrow. If the majority leader decides he
wants to do it today, we would not oppose even having that vote today.
We are going to oppose cloture. The reason being, if you read
newspapers today, you will see the House of Representatives, by a 99-
percent margin in the supplemental appropriations bill, put a provision
in that basically bans the Dubai Ports situation. I agree with that.
I suggested to the majority leader that we could have a vote on that
matter right now after a very short time period to debate it. That
would take it off of this bill. The majority leader said he doesn't
want that. He suggested voting on it tomorrow.
To make a long story short, the majority leader at this point has not
agreed to do that. As a result of that, any other thing we come up with
takes the second-degree amendment away. It doesn't allow that to be the
matter before the Senate.
I had a conversation with Senator Dodd last night, and he was telling
me how disappointed he was that we weren't going to complete this bill
today. But this is where the American people find the Senate today and
that is where we as Senators find ourselves today.
As I said yesterday--I say again today--I don't know if there is a
change of heart because of Congressman Boehner now having a leadership
position in the House or whether it is a matter of mere coincidence,
but I appreciate the House of Representatives being a legislative body,
a separate and equal branch of government.
We do not have to take orders from the White House. We don't have to
do what they tell us we should do, whether this is a Democratic Senate
or Republican Senate. There has been no better spokesperson of that
than Senator Byrd. Senator Byrd for years has said--and he has a
portfolio to substantiate what he said--that we serve separately from
the President. Whether it is Democrat or Republican down there, we have
our responsibilities.
I admire what the House did. They said we know this President feels
strongly about this. We know he said he is going to veto it, but we are
going to do it because we think we have an obligation to our
constituents. I am glad they did that. No rubberstamp. I think it is
about time. The issue is of critical importance to our national
security. Whether it is Iraq, Katrina, or protecting Americans from
terrorist threats, we have seen this administration choose, I believe,
the wrong course.
We have had amendments here on the floor where we wanted to increase
the security at our ports, checking our cargo containers, our chemical
plants, our nuclear plants. We could go down a long list. The White
House said they don't want them. So we don't get them. By a straight
party-line vote we lose over here. I hope this is coming to an end.
That is why it has been so difficult to work on a bipartisan basis
most of the time. There have been no vetoes. There has been nothing to
veto. Whatever the President wants, he has gotten. The losers have been
the American people, in my opinion.
That is where we found ourselves yesterday.
My friend from New York--no one can question his having been out
front on this issue from the very beginning. I appreciate his working
on a bipartisan basis to move this matter along. I told Senator Frist
this. I went to our special caucus yesterday, and we had Democratic
Senators coming from every side of the room saying I am going to move
to do what the House has done. As a result of that, Senator Schumer
came to the floor and offered an amendment which was going to be
offered. His having been out in front--I am glad he proposed it. He is
the face of this amendment. He deserves it. He was the first one who
noticed this issue in the press or anywhere else. I admire the work he
has done on this issue.
We can't turn over control of these ports to a foreign country. That
is what this is about. This isn't a foreign company, it is a foreign
country.
I received a 1\1/2\-page memo from the Commissioner of Ports of New
Jersey and New York. He said in his memo that whoever got this contract
was going to be all powerful. They would control the perimeters of the
ports. They would control who worked in the port. They would do
background checks of the people who work there. The American people
could sense this.
I think we overuse certain terms, but we want an up-or-down vote.
On the ``Lou Dobbs'' show last night when he was questioning one of
the guests--Lou Dobbs is on CNN--he said they are the same Republicans
who were demanding an up-or-down vote on judges such as Alito and they
won't give you a vote on this port thing. The only answer is, yes, it
is true.
My friend, the distinguished majority leader, has decided it is not
appropriate at this time to address this issue. That is a decision he
can make.
We stand ready to vote on this port matter after a very short debate.
I am sure Senator Schumer would agree to a couple hours, evenly
divided, maybe even a shorter time than that, but at least a couple of
hours would be appropriate at any time and move on.
I say through the Chair to anyone within the sound of my voice,
lobbying reform will be completed, and it will be completed, I hope,
sooner rather than later. This lobbying reform is important. We need to
do everything we can to help restore integrity to what we do in
Washington.
Having said that, it was absolutely wrong for the Senate not to take
action yesterday on the most important issue the American people see
today, and that is port security. I listened to Public Radio this
morning. They had part of the debate that took place in the House of
Representatives. I do not recall exactly what the vote was. I think it
was 62 to 2 or something like that. Marcy Kaptur, whom I came to the
House of Representatives with, a Congresswoman from Ohio, said never in
her long career in the House of Representatives has she received as
many phone calls and other communications from constituents about an
issue as the port security issue. And she speaks for the entire
Congress. That is the way it has been. My phones in my office in the
Hart Building of the Capitol area and in my Nevada offices are
overwhelmed with people concerned about this issue.
I support what my friend from New York did. I hope in the near future
the Senate will be able to vote on this matter.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I express my disappointment at the words
of the Democratic leader urging our colleagues to vote against cloture
on the lobbying reform measure. This is important legislation. This
legislation matters. This legislation is bipartisan legislation. It is
in response to declining public confidence in the integrity of the
decisions made by Government officials.
It is extremely unfortunate and unfair for this much needed
legislation to be slowed down by an important but completely unrelated
issue, regardless of one's views on the Dubai transaction. The
Presiding Officer knows I have been outspoken in calling for a full
investigation of the national security implications of this
transaction, but regardless of one's views on it, this issue should not
be tangled up in the debate on whether or not to strengthen our
lobbying disclosure laws.
[[Page S1927]]
We have worked hard to produce a bipartisan bill, two bipartisan
bills, that have been married to strengthen our lobbying laws. It is
extremely unfortunate to hear the Democrat leader say we should get it
done sometime but everyone should vote against cloture. That leads me
to question whether there really is a commitment to strengthening our
lobbying laws.
There is no reason we cannot proceed to the many amendments that have
been filed, to debate them fully, let the Senate work its will on each
of the amendments, and then clear this legislation so we can go to
conference with the House and send the bill to the President's desk.
Public confidence in Congress is very low right now, maybe at record
low levels. This legislation helps to promote public confidence in the
work we do and the decisions we make. This should not be a partisan
issue, and it has not been until the Democrat leader came to the Senate
to urge his colleagues to oppose cloture.
Why can't we proceed with the measure before the Senate? It is a
bipartisan measure.
My colleague, Senator Lieberman, has worked hand in hand with me on
the Committee on Homeland Security to produce this bill. Senator
McCain, Senator Santorum, Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold--all have been
involved and have worked very hard. Indeed, yesterday we were on the
verge of enacting a bipartisan amendment with the lead sponsor being a
Democratic Senator. I supported his amendment. It had to do with holds
being placed on bills. I thought it was a good amendment that would
help increase the transparency and accountability of what we are doing.
It is unfortunate the Democratic leader is urging delay, saying we
should not proceed to wrap up this bill and, in fact, we should not
vote for cloture.
I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support cloture.
It is imperative we move ahead with this bill. If we do not act today
to pass this legislation to strengthen public confidence in the
decisions we make, shame on us.
I am not saying the issue raised by the Senator from New York is not
an important issue. As I said, I have spoken time and again in favor of
a full 45-day review, and we have gotten that. We need to find out the
results of that investigation, have the Committee on Foreign Investment
report not only to the President but to us, and then make our
decisions.
I am introducing legislation to reform the entire Committee on
Foreign Investment to give it a stronger homeland security and national
security role and to house it in the Department of Homeland Security.
That is an important issue. But it is not the issue before the Senate
today. The issue before the Senate today is the lobbying reform
measure, two bipartisan bills that have been put together that will
help strengthen and promote public confidence in our decisions. Let's
get on with the task before the Senate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her
very eloquent remarks. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his
hard work on behalf of shaping legislation and bringing to the Senate
amendments that we can help bring about a restoration of confidence on
the part of the American people in the way we do business. I also
congratulate the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, who has
worked so closely with Senator Collins, as Senator Dodd has worked
closely with Senator Lott.
There are a group of Senators from both sides of the aisle--Senator
Obama, myself, Senators Lieberman, Collins, Lott, Pryor, a number of
other Senators--who, on an ad hoc basis, sat down for many hours to
discuss the various measures we believe need to be taken.
Also, there is another group of Senators that is very concerned about
the whole earmarking process which, in the view of any objective
observer, has lurched completely out of control, and which is the
source of a lot of the problems we are facing with the need for
lobbying reform because we have a system that makes it so vulnerable to
the exploitations of a few unscrupulous people--to wit, the Congressman
Cunningham case, as well as others.
I have never come to the Senate in the years I have been here to talk
about this institution. One, I didn't believe I had a need to, much
less have a right to. I have only been here since 1987. There are a
number of other Members who have been here a lot longer. But what I saw
happen yesterday and what I have seen transpire makes me very
concerned, and even to a degree saddened at the way the Senate has
degenerated and deteriorated from an atmosphere of a willingness to
address issues in the fashion that the Senate has to, which has to do
with sitting down, discussing, agreeing, and moving forward. We are not
the other body. Every Senator not only has individual rights, but,
thank God, 40 or 41 of them can prevent action from being taken.
I see a degree of partisanship and bitterness and mistrust permeating
this place which is not good not only for the institution of the Senate
but for the United States of America. When I first arrived here, the
leaders at that time, whether the other side was in the majority or
minority, and various more senior Members would sit down and settle on
an agenda that the Senate would pursue which, first and foremost, was
in the interests of the American people and, secondarily, was in the
interests of the respective parties.
Now we cannot move forward in the simplest fashion on issues that we
are all in agreement on, much less come to some agreement as to how we
can address an issue that is more contentious.
A lot of my colleagues say they love the institution of the Senate. I
don't love the institution of the Senate, but I respect it. I respect
it more than any institution I have ever been associated with. When I
travel around the world, usually at taxpayer expense, I am even more
proud of the institution of the Senate because it epitomizes what
America is all about: participatory democracy, the ability of one
another to fully debate and ventilate issues and come to consensus
without taint of corruption or illegitimacy in any way.
Now I see this institution deteriorating and degenerating to a point
where sometimes I am not only embarrassed but sometimes a little
ashamed.
Yesterday, we had a procedure going on to address a major concern of
the American people, and that is the lobbying practices and the ethics
rules with which we conduct our business. This was a product of a
bipartisan effort, both formal and informal, for many weeks. This was
an agreement. Of course, there was a tinge of partisanship, as there
always is, but 95 percent of it involved Members sitting down,
recognizing that American people do not approve of what we are doing. A
majority of the American people believe we do not share their
priorities. Only 25 percent of the American people approve of Congress;
75 percent disapprove.
The major concerns the American people have is they fear there is
corruption in our institutions. When we see the conviction of a Member
of Congress, when we see continued allegations concerning special
favors and the influence of special interests, there is at least smoke,
if not fire, in those associated with those allegations.
Yesterday, thanks to a bipartisan effort, we were moving forward with
an agenda. We had considered amendments. We had voted on one concerning
gifts. There was another one coming up that was going to be
contentious, and that is the use of corporate jets by Members of
Congress, for paying first-class fare instead of the charter rate which
every other citizen is required to do. Obviously, I will not get into
that debate. And then we had a schedule of some other amendments.
Then the Senator from New York came to the Senate and said just
before the vote, ``Reserving the right to object . . . '' because he
was reserving the right to object to a unanimous consent agreement, as
we do business here by unanimous consent agreement, ``before we set it
aside, on this amendment.'' On this amendment, that was his statement.
It is part of the Record. Then when he was recognized, he reached into
his pocket and pulled out an amendment.
It is the right of every Senator under the rules to propose an
amendment. It is not the right of every Senator to mislead his
colleagues. It is not the right of every Senator. How can we do
[[Page S1928]]
business in this Senate if our colleagues mislead us?
The current Presiding Officer, who happened to be the Chair at the
time, was surprised, as were the rest of us.
Fortunately, we keep a transcript of our remarks, and I went back and
I quoted from it again. I do not in any way criticize the right of any
Senator to propose an amendment at any time that is under the
parliamentary rules. But to stand up on the floor of this Senate and
say you are going to do one thing and then you do another is not only
inappropriate, but it risks--it risks--a breakdown of the kind of
courtesy we have to extend to each other if we are going to function as
a body.
So now the larger issue. The Senator from Nevada and the Senator from
New York are dead set on an amendment to negate the agreement
concerning the leasing of terminals in the United States by the United
Arab Emirates. I understand the passion they feel on that issue. I
respect their views on that. But do we have to--knowing full well it
would tie up the Senate--the Senator from Nevada has been around here
as long as I have. Knowing full well it would tie up the Senate, bring
to a halt any action we might take on ethics and lobbying reform, still
we are insistent upon that.
Now, the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Nevada will
stand up: It is our right, it is our right to propose any amendment
that is in a parliamentary fashion acceptable. I agree with that. I do
not dispute their right. I do dispute stopping--which it has; now we
are not going to move forward until after the cloture vote--stopping
our progress on the issue which is more important to the American
people or as important in an orderly fashion.
The Senator from Nevada knows full well if we are going to act
legislatively in this body he is going to have an opportunity to
propose this amendment. If we are going to act legislatively, we could
stop, we could not do anything in the Senate for 45 days or a month or
until the upcoming elections.
But my point is--and I want to, in fairness, say I see a lot of the
same thing on this side of the aisle quite occasionally, quite
frequently, that we will propose amendments to gain some kind of
political advantage. That has always been part of the way we have done
business. But hasn't it gotten out of proportion to our first
obligation, and that is to do the people's business? Isn't that the
reason why only 25 percent of the American people approve of what we do
and how we do it? Aren't we concerned? Aren't we concerned about how
the American people feel about us, the people we purport to represent?
What we need to do here is for the leaders on both sides, with
others, to sit down and map out an agenda we can all agree to. But to
bring this process of ethics and lobbying reform and earmark reform to
a halt for the sake of an amendment that has nothing whatsoever to do
with the businesses at hand, which is highly contentious, I think is
not doing the people's business.
I want to emphasize again, I do not dispute the right of the other
side of the aisle to act in a parliamentary fashion. There is nothing
illegal they are doing. But I would hope that perhaps the greater good
would prevail here, and we could sit down and work these things out,
which would require concessions made on both sides, which has been the
case of the way the Senate functions.
So I must say, I have only been here since 1987, but I have never
seen anything like I saw yesterday in the years I have been here. But
it is also symptomatic of the bitter partisanship that prevails here,
which prevents us from doing anything meaningful or doing very much
meaningful for the American people.
If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to give this side
of the aisle some of the blame for this partisanship we experience
here, I accept it. I accept it. I do not debate it. My point is, it is
time we sat down and mapped out an agenda we can all agree to, and
start doing the business of the people of this country first and our
parties' business and political advantage second.
I do not mean to be contentious in these remarks. I do not mean to be
too critical. But I did happen to be on the floor yesterday and see
something, as I said, I have never seen before. We have to stop, take a
deep breath, sit down together, and start working together. That sounds
a bit utopian or Pollyannaish, but it is not. And in the many years I
have been here, I saw people able to sit down--even if they had
strongly held feelings--together and work things out. We are not able
to do that today. It is time we changed course.
I thank my colleagues for their patience. I hope I was not in any way
condescending in my remarks concerning my concern about this body.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The minority leader.
____________________