[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 30 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1936-S1941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DUBAI
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the focus today, as we look at
reforming lobbyist activities, is trying to show that there is an
honest face within the Senate and within the Congress. We must continue
with those activities.
However, at the same time, we are looking at a situation that worries
more than 70 percent of the American people today. There is no doubt
about it, this deal is done. Today, Dubai Ports World owns shipping
terminals throughout the United States and in my home State of New
Jersey.
Frankly, it is an outcome we are all trying to prevent, and we need
to do whatever we can to reverse it. I am not sure it is possible,
despite the positive words from colleagues across the room. That is why
I am a cosponsor of this amendment.
I know the port area very well in my State of New Jersey. It is
called the Port of New York and New Jersey. It is the second busiest
container port on the east coast. Millions of tons of cargo pass
through it. It is strictly located to be near markets. It is less than
2 miles from the Newark Airport, one of the busiest in the country, and
stretches almost to the shores of New York, 2 miles of land that the
FBI says is the most dangerous 2 miles of territory in America for a
terrorist attack.
The reason goes beyond the confluence of all kinds of activities. It
also is an area where there is lots of chemical manufacturing, chemical
transportation, and warehousing of chemical materials. And it is said
that if an attack were successful in that area, we could be looking at
millions of deaths. And we want to transfer the operation of that
terminal container, the second biggest in the harbor, to Dubai? People
are saying it is good business and something that we have to do in the
interests of foreign trade and international economies.
The Dubai Ports deal has been mishandled by the administration from
the beginning. President Bush gave the deal a casual ``thumbs up'' when
it deserved the highest scrutiny. As a matter of fact, it wasn't even
brought to the attention of senior Cabinet officials. Or if it was
brought to their attention, they forgot it; they did not remember it.
Instead of a real investigation, the administration issued a document
called a Statement of No Objection. We have heard the President's
determination to have this go through, even suggesting that he would
veto it if there were any attempt to block the transaction. It is a
simple statement, the Statement of No Objection, issued by the Treasury
Department that said: No problem, go ahead and take over these
terminals in our country. Frankly, it was an irresponsible move.
On September 11, longshoremen, people employed on the docks at Port
Newark, could see the smoke rising from the World Trade Center across
the river. Indeed, throughout New Jersey, people looked to the sky in
disbelief. And now, the President is telling these people, my
constituents, not to worry? That is not good enough.
The Bush administration has been playing a shell game on this issue
from the very beginning. First, they said no thorough investigation was
necessary and approved the deal. What they were saying, basically, is
``mission accomplished.'' ``All done.'' We have heard that before, and
we know the consequences that came after that. There was a public
outcry.
Now the administration is supposedly conducting a thorough
investigation. Frankly, it is a meaningless gesture. The deal is done.
The deal is closed. Its final moments are today. So now the Ports World
Company from Dubai owns those terminals. Before this new investigation
even began, President Bush announced he had made up his mind. Last week
he said: My position hasn't changed. That throws out the possibility of
a truly objective investigation.
This is not simply a 45-day investigation. It is a 45-day stall while
the administration hopes the American people will forget about the
problem and they can go ahead with the business they plan. But we will
not forget what happened on September 11 and we will not forget how
much energy, resources, and prayers we devoted to keeping that kind of
an incident from ever happening again in America, an attack that
wounded us forever. We will not forget how the administration tried to
rubberstamp this deal. Our constituents are alarmed. They should be.
I don't think Dubai is a terrible place or the people are awful
people. But they consort with people with whom we do not agree. They
have a terrible record in Dubai of controlling their own ports. Dubai
was a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear weapon
components that were sent to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. The
relationship with Iran and Dubai is one that is unholy. Iran's stated
purpose,
[[Page S1937]]
we heard our distinguished Senator from Minnesota state, the President
of Iran says he will not be happy until Israel is blown off the map.
There is a constant support stream from Iran to terrorist
organizations Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. They all get support
there. Dubai does over $1 billion a year's worth of business with Iran
and now has a trade mission there. What does that do? That helps Iran
earn money, helps them to supply terrorist insurgent groups to Iraq
where they are out to kill our kids, our soldiers, and the Iraqi
people. Those are their friends. And we say, according to the
administration, come on, these are good people, they bring money, why
shouldn't we let them take over a sensitive part of our functioning?
We are saying ``no,'' and we are going to fight it in whatever ways
we can. It may take a public demonstration of support that is
overwhelming to keep it from happening. But right now, the presumed
opportunity for negotiation over the next 45 days is not there.
There is no opportunity, there is no compulsion to bring the truth
out. I want to see the administration offer to us, in whatever
protected area is necessary, what CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign
Investments in the United States--I want to see what they had in front
of them. And I am putting in a formal request. I want to see what they
had in front of them to let them make the decision that, again, did not
get the attention of Secretary Snow of the Department of Treasury, to
whom the CFIUS people should have reported. It did not seem to disturb
Secretary Rumsfeld. It did not seem to bother the President, certainly.
These links are there also between Dubai and Osama bin Laden and 9/
11. The FBI has determined that money used for the 9/11 attacks was
transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE's--United Arab
Emirates'--banking system. Further, after the 9/11 attacks, the
Treasury Department complained of a lack of cooperation by the UAE as
the United States was trying to track down Osama bin Laden's bank
accounts.
Now, we all remember when the Taliban was harboring and protecting
Osama bin Laden within its borders in Afghanistan. Civilized nations of
the world were working to isolate this repressive regime. However, the
UAE--the United Arab Emirates--was one of only three countries in the
world that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Government of
Afghanistan.
Then there is another disturbing revelation about the UAE and Osama
bin Laden. This seems impossible to conceive. The 9/11 Commission--a
respected body that did a lot of hard work in trying to understand what
took place on 9/11, what led up to it, and what we should do about
preventing that kind of an occurrence again--the 9/11 Commission
revealed, on pages 137 and 138 of its report, that members of the UAE
Royal Family were secretly meeting with Osama bin Laden--this goes back
to 1999--near his camp in Afghanistan. He had already done or led
terrible actions against Americans. The UAE meetings with bin Laden
came after bin Laden's 1998 bombing of United States Embassies in
Africa, killing over 220 people, including 12 Americans. It was also
after bin Laden issued something called a fatwa, stating that all
Muslims have a religious duty to ``kill Americans and their allies,
both civilian and military'' worldwide.
The UAE may also be responsible for undoing our best chance of
getting rid of bin Laden himself. Former CIA Director George Tenet told
the 9/11 Commission that the United States military was prepared to
launch a missile strike against bin Laden in February of 1999, but it
was called off. It was called off because United States officials
discovered the presence of UAE officials near the bin Laden camp. Mr.
Tenet, head of the CIA, testified to the 9/11 Commission that the
attack was called off when the United States realized that we--and I
quote here--``might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in
the process.'' Kept them alive. We have heard stories here: Oh, we know
where bin Laden is. We know what is going on. Well, if we know, why
don't we get him?
And this government wants to be able to control terminals in our
ports? I do not think so. And more than 70 percent of Americans do not
think so.
So it is time--it is time--for the Senate to stand up and say no--no,
no, no, no--to this takeover. We see how politically sensitive it is
because the American people are often smarter in their thinking than
sometimes we are here or in the House of Representatives.
The Republican-led House, the Republican Appropriations Committee,
yesterday said this deal with Dubai should not go through. Imagine,
Republicans challenging the President, the present leader of the
country, the Commander in Chief, challenging the President, their
party's President, where they have a majority in the House and here in
the Senate. They say to President Bush, with all respect: Say no. We do
not want this deal to go through. Say no to the giant international
corporations that want this deal to go through at any cost. And say yes
to this amendment. Do not let this contract go any further than it is.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have sat and listened to a lot of what
we have heard today. I will tell you that myself and Senator Lautenberg
and Senator Schumer raised this issue some 3\1/2\ weeks ago at a press
conference, in which we agreed there ought to be a timeout on this.
From that day forward, there has been significant increased knowledge
by the American people. There has been significant uproar.
During all the time of that, the intention was--and I was led to
believe by the Senator from New York--that the purpose was to find out
what is best for the country, to find out what needs to be done, and to
do it. That is not what we are doing today. That is not what this
amendment does today.
I used to serve in the House, starting in 1994. The House Members do
tend to reflect the current situations in the country. But a higher
standard is required of us as a body. And one is to know the facts
before we act. I would contend that the Senator from New York and the
Senator from New Jersey do not know the facts on this deal. Several
statements have been made about this being a done deal; it is a closed
financial deal. It is not a closed deal that Dubai Ports will, in fact,
operate these ports. As a matter of fact, the company has been very
straightforward with information with my office, the communications we
have had.
I do not believe we have the answer to the problem as of yet, and I
do not think we have clearly identified it. What it has done is give us
a wonderful chance to look at two things. The first thing we need to
look at is overall port security, which we know on the Homeland
Security Committee, for which myself and the Senator from New Jersey
are members, we have a lot of work to do still in terms of port
security, especially container inspection overseas and limiting the
risk of those things that come into this country.
But it also raises another opportunity, and it is something I have
been calling for since I have been in this body. It is for us to start
thinking long term and not about the politics. The tendency that we see
negates that which my favorite hero of the 20th century espoused,
Martin Luther King. He said: Vanity asks, is it popular? And cowardice
asks, is it expedient? But conscience asks, is it right?
The right thing to do right now is not to vote on this amendment. The
right thing to do is to fill ourselves with the knowledge we need to
have and to exert our privilege in this body to do something once we
have that knowledge. I would portend to you the amendment that is
attempting to be offered is a political stunt. It is not based on
knowledgeable information about what are and are not the facts. It is
based on what is most politically expedient. I think that is harmful to
our country, and I know it is harmful to the body.
If you go to the root cause of every problem we have in this country,
it is because we are looking for political expediency rather than to
make the hard choices about the long-term consequences of what is best
for our country. Usually, when it gets into these things, since I am
not an attorney and not a lawyer, but I am on the Judiciary Committee,
I use a little book. It is called the Constitution of the United
[[Page S1938]]
States. There are some pretty interesting things in the Constitution
about where we are today on this issue.
Article I, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution provides:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, . . .
enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or
with a foreign Power. . . .
It is called the Compact Clause. It has been upheld multiple times.
Article II, section 2, provides:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice .
. . of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of
the Senators present concur. . . .
In other words, for a State or a port authority to enter into a
contract with a foreign government or a company wholly owned by a
foreign government, they must receive permission from the Congress.
That is what the Constitution says.
There is no question there needs to be CFIUS reform. But one of the
ways out of this--to recognize the value of the ally we do have in
Dubai, regardless of the negatives that may be associated with it, and
to recognize other allies that also have negatives in terms of what we
believe as parameters for faith and justice and liberty--is to do what
the Constitution says, and that is recognize the Compact Clause and the
treaty clause in the Constitution and to convince all those involved to
take a timeout.
The Senator from New Jersey rightly states that the financial
closings of DP Ports International did take over the assets of the
previous owner, the British company, as of 1 o'clock yesterday or 2
o'clock yesterday. But that company has put forward that nothing has
changed within the American ports. They have graciously, in the
situation they find themselves, extended that period for 45 days, and
probably will extend it for a longer period of time should we so
desire.
But I think one of the most important points I want to make in this
debate is, let's do what is right in the long run, not what is
politically expedient in the short run.
For the American people to know, the real reason they want a vote is
because they want to say, Who is going to vote against this so they can
run a campaign commercial against you because you voted against them--
not because you did not take the time to do what is right and to think
and to, on the basis of knowledge and information and informed
intellect, make a decision about what is best for this country. But
hurry up and run a vote so we can create a politically intriguing
moment.
That is not what the Senate was intended to be. It is not what we
should be about. And it is not what we should be doing today.
I must express I am extremely disappointed with the Senator from New
York in terms of the assurances he gave me that this stunt would not be
pulled. But, in fact, he has done that. I do not know if that is
because the Appropriations Committee in the House decided to run real
quick and get it done and getting beat in terms of the headlines or he
has some new information none of the rest of us knows that requires the
immediate passing of this today. It does not. This is a political
stunt.
Our obligation to the people of this country is to secure this
country and to make sure we do it in a way that creates the best
interests for us, both domestically and internationally. This amendment
is not going to do that. What it is going to do is slap the country of
Dubai, which may or may not need to be. But we do not know that
information. It is going to insult them, somebody who is very critical
to us in terms of what we are doing right now in the Middle East.
It is going to set us backwards. It is going to make this a more
partisan body. I would remind the Senator that what goes around comes
around. I can play hardball on this. I choose not to. The Senate was
not designed for that. The Senate was designed to be a collegial body
through thinking, knowledge, and informed consent, and coming together;
that we, in fact, try to solve the problems of this country.
This is not trying to do this. This is trying to create division in
the answer of political expediency, in the answer of vanity, not in
response to conscience and courage. The courageous thing now is to take
the timeout and find out what is going on and what needs to be changed,
both in the process of how this came about, but also in the facts of
this particular case. If that is the case--what the Senators from New
York and New Jersey want to do--then why do we have COSCO running the
Port of Los Angeles?
Why do we have foreign governments running other ports? If this was a
sincere amendment, it would be reversing all of those. It is not a
sincere amendment. It is an amendment about politics.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. I want to finish my point, if I may. Federalist No. 44
commented on the compact clause saying that it was so clearly needed,
that the particulars of the clause fall within reasonings which are
either so obvious or have been so fully developed that they may be
passed over without remark.
Our forefathers had this figured out. All we have to do is follow the
Constitution. Senator Shelby in the Banking Committee is looking at
CFIUS reform. We have plenty of time to do what we need to do. But to
run off in response to a motion without the facts is a dangerous
precedent for this body. This is a reasoned body. The more partisanship
we have, the less reason will prevail.
In several cases, courts have said the application of the compact
clause is limited to agreements that are directed to the formation of
any combination tending to increase a political power in States which
may encroach on or interfere with the just supremacy of the United
States. So we already have the power to fix this under the compact
clause and the treaty clause, both under article I and article II of
the Constitution. That is what we ought to be doing. We have plenty of
time to address that, while the appropriate committees within Congress
address the actual facts of this case.
The United States has no national port authority. Jurisdiction is
shared by Federal, State, and local governments, but it does not lessen
the power of the U.S. Congress to have control over this. We do need to
make some changes. The CFIUS program is wrong. My fellow colleague from
Oklahoma has a wonderful bill in terms of reforming that. Senator
Shelby is changing some things. The fact is, not a good job in looking
at some of these things has been done, and we have shirked our
responsibility as the Senate in looking at it. But to run now to an
amendment on the basis of pure political expediency does a disservice
to this country in the long run. We ought not to do it. We can do it,
and lots of Americans would be happy, but the consequences that will
follow are grave, not only the consequences with this act but the
consequences of the behavior of this body in the future, if we so act
that way.
I call on my colleagues to refrain from doing anything other than
gathering the appropriate knowledge, the details, look at the workings
of the committees that are going on. Homeland Security is looking at
this. Banking is. There will be several opportunities for us to fix
this so that we appropriately can take a look at it. When the time
comes, if this is not appropriate for the United States, it won't go
through. But it will be done on the basis of a reasoned analysis of
what is both good for us domestically in terms of our security, our
economic security, as well as our foreign policy. We can have all sorts
of speeches that beat up the President. The fact is, he is operating
under the law. He has operated under the law. There is a law that this
body created and gave him. We may need to change that law, but to
cavalierly criticize what has been done is inappropriate.
We have already said we want an extra 45 days. We have that. If we
need additional time, we will get it. This company is more than willing
to work to make sure that we assure ourselves of absolute security. If
it is so that we should not have this go through, then this body will
not allow it. But it will be on the basis of facts, not emotion and not
political expediency and trickery.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S1939]]
Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we just heard from the Senator from
Oklahoma, someone with whom I have been working since he has been here.
We have significant differences of view on issues, but there is a
mutual respect. He did join Senator Schumer from New York and me when
we announced our opposition at first to this Dubai transaction. There
was also a gesture of good faith. We were not expecting to have the
political difference become so sharp and so angry over these next days,
but information came out about how casually the disapproval took place
from CFIUS, the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States.
It is supposed to get a review and had a 30-day review.
We listened to the recall by the Senator from Oklahoma about the
compact section of the first amendment and reminding us that the Senate
should advise and consent on matters like treaties, other things
related to international relationships. But nobody knew anything about
this. That was the interesting part. Here this thing suddenly pops up
on the screen. There is a deal. The Emir of Dubai, a part of the United
Arab Emirates, is going to buy this facility in a very sensitive part
of the New York-New Jersey Harbor, one of the biggest harbors in the
country and the world, all kinds of activities there. I mentioned them
in my earlier remarks, a lot of industry, chemical manufacturing,
gasoline distribution facilities, all kinds of things that are
potentially subject to violent aftershocks if attacked, ignited. Deaths
could range in the millions.
It so happened that the World Trade Center, which is on the perimeter
of this area--the FBI considers the 2-mile stretch between Newark
Airport and the New York-New Jersey Harbor as the most dangerous target
for terrorism in the country; the most dangerous 2-mile stretch in the
country, says the FBI. The port facility is right alongside this, as is
Newark Liberty Airport.
Now we are hearing that Dubai has been friendly. They have helped us.
They have let us dock our ships in their harbor.
How do we ignore their association? If someone is a member of a gang,
a Mafia-type gang, and we know that they are a member, do we
immediately invite them to join the bank board, or do we immediately
invite them to one of the more important institutions in our country?
Do we invite them to the Board of the Federal Reserve, the board of the
stock exchange? Absolutely not. I ran a big company. I wouldn't have
invited them to join the board of my company.
Here we have Dubai in a cozy relationship with Iran. Iran pours money
into the Iraqi insurgent movement. Iran thusly kills some of our
troops. Yesterday we lost a couple more. It seems endless. And Iraqi
families are torn apart, children killed, mothers, fathers, brothers,
sisters--all targets for attack by these insurgents supported by
cashflow from Iran. Iran has plenty of cash; little moral principle--
none--but plenty of cash, determined to wipe Israel off the map. They
say so. That is the President of the country speaking officially to
4,000 students gathered. He said: We want to wipe Israel off the map.
That is a pretty bold threat. I wouldn't take it lightly. The
Israelis shouldn't take it lightly, and America should never take it
lightly.
Dubai helped them get nuclear components to build nuclear weapons.
That is what this is about. Dubai helped finance the 9/11 attack
through their financial system. It took money as well as madness. Dubai
helped. What does that count for? Nothing?
The secret nature of the CFIUS meetings, we are to be consoled? As a
matter of fact, it was even said by some that it was a victory getting
this 45-day window for review. Victory? Like the devil it is a victory.
The ball game is over. The deal is made. Dubai Ports World now owns the
terminal in Newark and several other ports around the country. They
paid $6 billion for it. The Emir bought it out of his own cash. So the
deal is done. And the 45-day declaration of victory is a hollow
response. There is nothing there. We can't do anything about it.
Yes, if the Republican majority in the House or the Senate say no,
Mr. President, we are not going along with this deal, as was indicated
by the 60-some Members of the Appropriations Committee in the House who
voted against going through with this transaction with Dubai, that has
to be a pretty significant revelation. If the President loses the
troops that support him so fully, he ought to hear this. This is an
unacceptable transaction. It has little to do with advice and consent.
I don't think there is any way we can stop this. This transfer has
been made. But why should we waste 45 days to find out? That is what I
don't get. We ought to simply take the vote up here. Let's vote in the
Senate. Let us do it now, or next week, and decide do we approve of
this transfer--and let it be amended any way we want to--from a company
that has been operating there for a number of years, a British company.
The history was already in place, so we had nothing to worry about
there. But we only have 5 percent of the containers that come into the
country that are thoroughly examined.
The committee on which I sit, the Governmental Affairs Committee, had
a review. Witnesses came from the maritime community, a representative
of Dubai, the chief financial officer, and the fellow who heads the
World Ports organization. Everybody was convinced there would be few,
if any, problems, with nothing to worry about. Then, suddenly, we find
out there are things to worry about--a lot of things to worry about. It
is said that you judge a person by the company they keep. Well, the
company Dubai keeps is not very encouraging, as far as I am concerned.
Our mission and responsibility here is the safety and security of the
American people. That is what this is all about. It is not hatred for
Dubai, but it raises a question about the company Dubai keeps, about
the actions they have taken, about the fact that they were the first to
recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government in Afghanistan. That
is pretty errant behavior, as far as I am concerned. So, my friends,
when you get it all talked about and people start getting on their high
horses, saying this can be an ad in a political election campaign,
would you rather have something go awry instead of taking the extra
layer of protection we have taken? Not I. If you think this transaction
should be allowed to go ahead and be completed, don't worry about it,
mission accomplished, then vote for permitting the action to go
through. If not, then join the logic, join the examination, join the
view that says these people have things to prove.
I throw out a challenge here to the Emir of Dubai, to the United Arab
Emirates: Why don't you say you will remove the boycott that stops
Israeli products from coming there, that wants to wipe Israel off the
map--get off of that boycott team and show good faith. Do you mean you
want to be a friend of ours? Then don't challenge the existence of one
of our friends. Say that they are off the boycott and products can flow
and passports can be honored.
I will never forget when I went to Saudi Arabia during the first gulf
war. I was the first legislator to be in that country. The reason was,
there was a big air base in New Jersey called McGuire Air Force Base,
where troops and materiel are flown to the eastern theater very
promptly. They were in Saudi Arabia and I went to visit them. When I
went there, there was a question of whether my passport would be
valid--a United States Senator, one of 100 in this country, an official
part of the American Government--a question whether my passport would
be valid entry into Saudi Arabia because I had once visited Israel on
that passport, and it had a stamp that said Israel. They are so
narrowminded there that they said: If you have been to Israel, you are
not welcome in this country with that kind of a passport. That is how
mad and crazed they are about that boycott business.
Right now, they have us by the barrels. Oil prices are going through
the roof. Wealth is pouring into these countries as never before
believed possible. Look at Dubai. I understand from the pictures it is
beautiful--skyscrapers, and I think they even have an
[[Page S1940]]
indoor ski hill. They have all kinds of things from money that we send.
That money is used to buy ammunition for insurgents to continue to
promote terrorism by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and all the others
through Iran. And Dubai says they are our pals.
What I conclude with is we ought to play showdown here--to use the
expression--and vote on whether we want this deal to go through. It is
so simple. Let the American people hear those who agree say yes, and
those who disagree say no. It is not political, but let's do it.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I rise to speak
about the motion to invoke cloture, which will be voted on in about an
hour and 20 minutes. I must say that as the ranking Democrat on the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, from which a
significant part of the lobbying reform legislation before the Senate
now came, I am deeply disappointed that we have reached this point in
the debate on that critically important legislation. We have a once-in-
a-generation opportunity to reform our lobbying laws and, in fact,
touch other parts of the ethical standards by which we govern ourselves
in the Senate. The Abramoff scandal and others have created this
moment.
The Rules Committee has come forward with a constructive package of
reforms. Our committee, on a bipartisan basis, brought out a
significant series of amendments. The Lobbying Transparency and
Accountability Act--this bill--is moving forward with a good, healthy
debate. I actually believe we would have been coming close to passing
it tonight if the amendment of my colleague from New York had not been
offered yesterday and we are now in the gridlock we are in, requiring
the cloture vote.
I am going to vote against cloture. I want to explain why. I assume
cloture, from what I have heard, will not necessarily be achieved, and
then we are going to face a moment of decision, which will call on all
of us, including particularly our leaders, to reason together so we can
get back to the lobbying reform legislation and presumably find another
opportunity for Senator Schumer and others who wish to have this
Chamber vote on the Dubai Ports World acquisition of terminals in this
country.
I am going to vote against cloture for two reasons. First, this bill
was on the floor and open to amendment for less than a day before the
motion for cloture was filed. That simply is not enough time for the
kind of debate and amendment for this bill, so critical to our
institution's credibility with the American people, to be debated.
Second, there were several amendments which had not been introduced
yet, awaiting discussion and debate and eventual vote, including some I
wanted to offer or cosponsor that were relevant. But virtually all of
these, I believe, would be ruled nongermane if cloture is granted and,
thus, could not be offered.
There is one particular amendment I am focused on, joining with some
colleagues to offer, that I have been informed by the Parliamentarian
would not be germane if cloture were to be invoked. That is the
amendment that Senators McCain, Collins, Obama, and I were going to
offer to strengthen enforcement of the Senate ethics rules and
oversight of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
We have some excellent provisions already in the legislation before
us--disclosure, prohibitions--but there is a second step we have to
take to make sure these new standards we are setting become real, and
that is to provide for enforcement and oversight. These are critical
elements of reform that require us to establish what we have called an
independent Office of Public Integrity.
This is a proposal that Senator Collins and I offered in committee
markup. It did draw criticism from some of our colleagues and was
defeated in the committee. We said then that we would reoffer it or
offer something similar to it on the floor. Senators McCain and Obama,
who have long been active in this particular area of enforcement of our
lobbying disclosure and Senate ethics rules, have joined us. We are
very proud they have joined us.
Since the committee vote against the amendment, Senator Collins and I
have worked with our colleagues to address some of the concerns that
were expressed in the committee. We have altered the office's oversight
and limited it to the Senate so it will not now serve both the House
and the Senate. It will be limited to the Senate so there will be no
question about whether the House might have some effect--we didn't
think so--but some effect on the right of the Senate under the
Constitution to set its own rules and discipline its Members.
This proposal, we think, will increase the professionalism and
credibility of the Senate's self-policing. It is in no way meant as
criticism of the Senate Ethics Committee, which has served honorably
and well.
We also believe, in the current situation, there is not adequate
review, monitoring, and enforcement of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and
not enough personnel, not enough independence in the oversight. Since
we are increasing the requirements on lobbyists for disclosure, we
think we also would benefit from an independent office to carry out
those requirements. Again, if cloture is invoked, we won't get to offer
these particular amendments which are critical to this once-in-a-
generation moment of opportunity for lobbying reform, and that alone is
reason why I will vote against cloture.
There are other amendments. There is another amendment that may be
ruled nongermane that would require Members of Congress to pay fair
market value for travel on private planes. That is an important
amendment. I intend to support it. It is quite possible that invoking
cloture will make it not germane and, therefore, we will not able to
offer it.
I want to say a final word about the amendment offered by the Senator
from New York on the Dubai Ports deal. Apparently, there is such a
strong feeling among the American people about this, as reflected now
in the overwhelming vote in the House Appropriations Committee and the
offering of this amendment, that I fear we are rushing to respond to
that feeling rather than being leaders.
Here is the point I want to make. I would oppose this amendment as it
has been put before us today. The most fundamental reason is this: This
does something that we are not supposed to do in America, where we
believe in the rule of law. We appeal to other nations around the world
to follow the rule of law as a condition of a modern society. It is the
underpinning of the kind of freedom and opportunity that we believe in
our heart is right in this country.
I fear the rush of emotion and the anxiety, understandably, of the
American people as we are involved in this war against Islamic
terrorism--not against Islam, not against the Arab world--that we are
forgetting that in America, we don't convict people without a trial. We
don't convict people in America without a trial.
There has been a preliminary hearing in this case, if I may put it
that way, using a judicial, criminal enforcement metaphor. The
preliminary hearing was before the so-called CFIUS, the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States. It reached a judgment that
there was no reason, based on security concerns, to stop this
acquisition from going forward.
In our Homeland Security Committee and Armed Services Committee on
which I serve, I had an opportunity to question people who were
involved in this review. I think the review was inadequate, and I know
what was grossly inadequate is the way in which this decision to allow
the acquisition of these terminals to go forward was explained to the
American people. It was not explained to the American people, it was
not explained to Members of Congress, and it apparently was not
explained to the President of the United States. That was a terrible
error. The Dubai Ports World company, after the initial furor, came
back and submitted another application. There is an ongoing 45-day
review. After the tremendous
[[Page S1941]]
public uproar over this issue, this review will be thorough. I have
spoken with people involved in the review. I said to the top people in
the departments: Put your hands on this one, this is critical.
To rush ahead and say, no way, before this Commission has an
opportunity to reach a judgment and advise Members of Congress and the
American people about what their judgment, it seems to me, to be
unfair. It is not the way we handle issues of this kind in America. It
raises an awful question, which I ask everybody to think about because
we promised people in this country--this extraordinary, greatest
country in the world--that here you can be sure you will be judged by
your merits, not by your race, or nationality, or religion, or gender,
or sexual orientation, or age. I worry that in the midst of the war
against Islamist terrorism, we are reaching a hasty judgment based on
factors that ought not to be considered in the United States of
America.
I don't know how I will vote ultimately on this proposal about the
acquisition by Dubai Ports World, a company controlled by the United
Arab Emirates. I don't know enough to reach a judgment on that. I am
waiting for that 45-day review.
I do know that the United Arab Emirates has been, since September 11,
an extremely important, constructive ally of ours in the war against
terrorism. I know they have put their own people on the line in very
dangerous places to assist us in the war on terrorism. I know that the
Dubai Port, as I understand it, sees more visits by U.S. Navy ships
than any other port in the world. So obviously, the U.S. Navy has
enough confidence in the security of their port to have done that.
That doesn't mean that the acquisition of these terminals by Dubai
Ports World should receive a free pass, but it should mean, in addition
to the basic qualities of fairness that generally characterize American
life, that this proposed acquisition does deserve a fair hearing, not a
rush to judgment before all the facts are in, which I say respectfully
is what the committee of the other body did yesterday and what the
amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New York would have
us do in this Chamber.
This is one of those moments where we are tested because the emotions
are high, but we are leaders. We are elected leaders, and I hope we
will rise to the occasion and at least let this company and this
country have a fair trial before any of us reach a judgment about
whether they are guilty or not guilty.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered.
____________________