[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.

                          ____________________