[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.

                          ____________________