[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 60 (Monday, April 16, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4471-S4474]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007--Continued

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise to oppose cloture on the 
Intelligence authorization. There are plenty of things wrong with this 
bill, but our primary objection, once again, is the way it is being 
handled on the floor.
  The Democratic majority has filed 21 cloture motions so far this 
session. At this rate, we will have 160 cloture motions by the end of 
the 110th Congress. This would shatter the old record of 82 back in 
1995 and 1996.
  The purpose of filing cloture early is to end debate and accelerate 
the passage of a measure, but abusing this privilege has the opposite 
effect. If the minority is shut out of the debate, it will block 
participation until their Members are respected and their voices are 
given an opportunity to be heard. We have seen this happen again and 
again over the last 3\1/2\ months as the majority has repeatedly 
struggled and failed to move legislation.
  Republicans take no joy in this, but we will continue to defend our 
right to be heard. The Senate, as we have learned over the years, is 
not the House. Contrast this torpid pace of legislation in this 
Congress with the first 3\1/2\ months of the last one, when Republicans 
passed some of the most far-reaching civil justice reforms in decades. 
Republicans knew that the price of passing laws was to work with the 
minority, to have an open debate, and to vote on amendments the other 
side had to offer.
  On bankruptcy reform, for example, we allowed 30 votes, including 
final passage. On this date, in the first session of the 109th 
Congress, Republicans had filed only four cloture motions. Looking back 
to the previous Congress on this date, we had only filed four cloture 
motions. We have had 21 filed by the new majority.
  On this date in the first session of the 108th Congress, we had filed 
5 cloture motions, as compared to 21 at this point with the new 
majority. On this date in the first session of the 107th Congress, we 
had only filed one cloture motion.
  I think the message is pretty clear. I started this session by 
expressing the hope that we would do big and important things for the 
country. The realities of divided Government and the rules of the 
Senate make that supremely possible, and I thought the bipartisan 
meeting we had that first week in the Old Senate Chamber was a sign of 
good things to come. I still have that hope, and I see a real 
opportunity opening with the early steps the majority leader has taken 
on immigration reform. We are going to that the last 2 weeks before the 
Memorial Day recess. I think that is a good thing. I commend him for 
it.
  It is my hope that this trend of limited debate and limited 
amendments--which, of course, leads to the limitation of minority 
rights--will soon come to an end. Madam President, 3\1/2\ months is not 
that long a time. We can still correct course and accomplish very 
important things for our country.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 20, S. 
     372, the Intelligence Authorization bill of 2007.
         Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Russell D. Feingold, Jay 
           Rockefeller, Evan Bayh, Patty Murray, Dick Durbin, Jeff 
           Bingaman, Robert Menendez, B.A. Mikulski, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, S. 
           Whitehouse, Byron L. Dorgan, Blanche L. Lincoln, Ron 
           Wyden.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on S. 372, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2007 for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of 
the United States Government, the Intelligence Community Management 
Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability 
System, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. 
Harkin), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa 
(Mr. Harkin) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each 
vote ``yea.''
  LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from 
Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the 
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Craig), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the 
Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens

[[Page S4472]]


     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Biden
     Brownback
     Cochran
     Craig
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Martinez
     McCain
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Roberts
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 
40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I have to declare myself absolutely 
a series of things: furious, double-crossed, misled, minimized--in 
terms of my role as a Senator and as chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee--shocked by the arrogance of the technique that was used 
between the White House and the minority leader to say to Republicans, 
after weeks in which Vice Chairman Bond and I worked out a compromise 
on a managers' amendment on which we worked in good faith--I dropped 
things he did not like, he dropped things I did not like--but it was a 
genuine effort.
  Vice Chairman Bond, whom I respect greatly, stood here praising the 
managers' amendment. Then the word came down from the White House--not 
from Vice Chairman Bond but from the White House--through the minority 
leader, that this vote was to be a test of Republican Party loyalty and 
that therefore all Republicans were instructed to vote against it.
  In all of my years in the Senate, and certainly all of my years on 
the Intelligence Committee, I have never seen something so repugnant, 
putting politics over national security. That is the bottom line. 
Politics was put over national security.
  An order came down: This is a test of Republican Party loyalty. When 
it comes to that, by golly, you put politics over national security.
  Thirty-one people, at least, died at Virginia Tech University this 
afternoon. All of my kids went to camp there. I know a number of 
students down there. I called to find out that they were OK, and there 
was grief everywhere. Republicans were standing up, Democrats were 
standing up expressing they were horrified.
  I was just trying to figure out how many intelligence agents, how 
many soldiers--because of inadequate intelligence or because of some 
slip-up or something we had not done, something which we were prepared 
to correct or did correct in the managers' amendment--died, and I 
suspect the number was essentially greater than 31.
  Now, my heart goes out to those 31. I know some of them who were 
spared. I was in despair until I knew they were OK.
  But this act of cynicism, this act for the third year in a row, 
blocking intelligence legislation is beyond me. We all understand 
nothing can happen in military action without intelligence leading the 
way in; to scout out the territory, to get the feeling, to get through 
language skills, et cetera, to get the feeling of what is going on so 
we know what we are getting into.
  I will not get into the importance of intelligence for Iraq or 
Afghanistan, but this is a real crusher. I am not shocked or 
discouraged with the intelligence. I am more fired up than ever on 
intelligence. I am shocked because something like this happens in the 
United States Senate for any reason at any time. I have been in this 
body for 24 years.
  I have been in this body for 24 years, and on one occasion a majority 
leader called me at home--I happened to be shaving, and it was not a 
convenient phone call--and asked me to vote against a particular piece 
of legislation, which I was going to vote against in any event. That 
has never happened since then. Not once have I been instructed by my 
party or by my minority or majority leader to vote a certain way.
  Yet when it comes to national security, to funding intelligence 
agencies, where we change the authorities, where we spent weeks in 
trying to work out hard problems, and did so in the managers' 
amendment, with more amendments to come, which we would have agreed to, 
to alleviate the White House's concern--the White House decided they do 
not like oversight. Well, I understand that. When I was a Governor, I 
did not like oversight. Nobody likes oversight, but it is our 
constitutional responsibility. We do not have that choice. We have that 
duty.
  One of the great things about the Intelligence Committee is it has 
come together in recent months to accept this responsibility and to 
reach out and take hold of it with a vigor and a lust that makes us 
want to do more--but not to overdo but to do. Then along comes this 
vote.
  It certainly is the most disappointing day, the most disappointing 
vote, the most disappointing sign of where we are in this country--the 
most disappointing sense of the relationship between the executive 
branch and the legislative branch--the failure of the realization we 
exist for a reason, that we work hard, getting ready for this vote 
because we had a chance to do it. Then comes down the instruction: No. 
Politics trumps national security. Prove you are a loyal Republican. 
Vote no.
  It is not a good day in the Senate.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was fortunate enough to serve on the 
Intelligence Committee for 4 years and served with the Senator from 
West Virginia, as well as the Senator from Missouri. It is one of the 
toughest assignments in the Senate. It is time consuming. It is 
demanding. It takes a long time to even understand the nature of our 
intelligence community and the valuable work they do.
  I salute all members of the Intelligence Committee on both sides of 
the aisle for sticking with it. They do not get a lot of public 
attention because these hearings and deliberations are behind closed 
doors. This is classified information. It is critically important for 
the security of the United States of America that this Intelligence 
Committee work and work closely with the intelligence agencies.
  I want to say a word on behalf of the chairman of this Intelligence 
Committee on the Senate side, Senator Rockefeller. I cannot think of a 
person who has put in more time--certainly on our side of the aisle but 
in the Senate--dedicated to doing this job right. It must be next to 
impossible to keep up with everything else he has to do, but he has 
dedicated himself to this. I know how much this bill means to him.
  This reauthorization bill for the intelligence agencies is critically 
important to him personally, but, more importantly, it really means so 
much for our Nation. If our intelligence does not get it right, we are 
more vulnerable. If we are more vulnerable, it means that not just 
people living in Springfield, IL, but our troops in the field are more 
vulnerable. So he has worked overtime to bring this intelligence 
authorization bill to the floor in a spirit of bipartisanship, as he 
described.
  This amendment, which was just stopped by this procedural motion, is 
a bipartisan amendment. It is from both the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Rockefeller, and the vice chairman of the committee, Senator 
Bond--Democrat and Republican. I believe him when he says he has worked 
in a spirit of compromise to try to find a reasonable position.
  Now, when we offer this amendment, this substitute amendment, to the 
Senate, and say, if you have something you want to offer to improve 
it--Senator Reid said that earlier--I cannot think of a fairer way to 
approach an issue, which should not be political at all.
  One amendment was offered. It is my understanding only one amendment 
was offered. It looked like we were finally going to get this 
reauthorization of intelligence agencies that are so important for our 
security. Along comes this procedural vote, which should have been a 
toss-away vote. It ends up virtually stopping the debate on this 
critical bill. Why? I cannot understand it.
  We have said: Offer your amendments, and only one amendment was 
offered. Senator Rockefeller has worked with the Republican side of the 
aisle for a bipartisan approach. You have given; the other side has 
given. It

[[Page S4473]]

was a good spirit of compromise, cooperation. That is what people want. 
Certainly, when it comes to the security of our Nation, you do not 
expect us to come in as Democrats and Republicans. We have a lot more 
responsibility.
  So what happened now? When we tried to bring this to a point where it 
could pass, where the amendments would be limited to the most germane 
amendments that really get to the heart of the issue, the other side of 
the aisle, voted no, and now we are stuck.
  They knew what they were doing. They were trying to kill this bill. 
But why would they want to stop this bill? This is a good bipartisan 
bill essential for the security of America that had been arrived at in 
a bipartisan manner, and they stopped it. I do not understand that.
  I salute Senator Rockefeller for his leadership. I understand his 
frustration. Certainly, the people who depend on us in the Senate, in a 
bipartisan fashion, to keep America safe were let down by this vote 
where the overwhelming majority of Republican Senators voted no.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I came here earlier today anticipating there 
would be Republicans who would rise above the partisan clamor. I 
looked, as the vote was being cast: no, no, no, at the people I thought 
could do this.
  Sixteen agencies are all responsible for gathering intelligence 
information for our country.
  Mr. President, let's call it the way it is. Vice President Cheney 
runs the intelligence operations of this administration. He has for 6 
years. It apparently is not going to stop. We could not even improve 
the intelligence-gathering operations for the 16 agencies because it 
may interfere with the Vice President.
  Mr. President, even the vice chairman of the committee voted against 
moving forward. I heard his conversation with the chairman, why he was 
doing this--because he had been asked to do it. We have had experiences 
in the past with the way the Republicans--everybody, hear that--have 
handled the intelligence-gathering information for our Nation. The 
Senate had to be closed using rule XXII to get some minimal information 
how the evidence was manipulated to take us to war in Iraq, and we got 
some of that information.

  There has been a change in the leadership of the Senate. I was 
hopeful it would be better, and it has been for 3 months. There has 
been cooperation between the two Senators, the chairman and vice 
chairman. We are not dealing with--we have had to invoke cloture on 
everything we have done here because, as I said earlier today, I 
thought a minority of Republican Senators was standing in the way of 
our doing what we have done--minimum wage, stem cell, all that stuff.
  But here we are dealing with our spies. That is what they are. We 
know from the situation where there has been an indictment and 
conviction that the White House was involved in that up to their neck 
with the ``Scooter'' Libby matter. Karl Rove appeared before the grand 
jury on three or four or five occasions trying to extricate himself. 
The President said anyone who had anything to do with leaking 
information would be dumped from the administration quickly. Of course, 
that has not happened. I guess there is nothing in the minds of Karl 
Rove and his minions that is not politics--even the spy operations of 
this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there have been some insinuations which have 
been thrown around on the other side. Let me be clear. This was not a 
cloture vote on the managers' amendment. This was a cloture vote on the 
bill. Many Republican Senators had asked to have an opportunity to 
offer amendments. Some 35 amendments have been submitted. The time for 
submitting the amendments shut off at 2:30 today, and we have at least 
10 or so Senators who could not get back here.
  Now, this bill is a good bill. But we have no reason, before we even 
start work on the bill, to invoke cloture to shut off amendments. 
Nobody from the White House told us to do that. We have Republican 
Senators who wanted to have an opportunity to offer amendments and 
vote. This is a critically important bill for the intelligence 
community, and I believe we need to work on it at least a couple of 
days. Is that too much to ask, that we work on it a couple of days?
  I know the leader has entered a motion to reconsider. And if there is 
any sense--if there is any sense--that there is dilatory action, if 
there is any sense that we are not moving quickly on this bill in very 
short order, I would join with him and urge my Republican colleagues to 
do so to move this bill forward. This bill is one that has to pass if 
we are to get our legitimate congressional oversight.
  I am not going to get into the arguments between the leaders on how 
many times we have invoked cloture. But on this one--this one--I gladly 
urged everybody to vote for cloture to proceed to the bill. There may 
be some in the executive branch who did not want us to. There may be a 
lot of provisions in the bill on oversight that the executive branch 
does not want. I believe we have a responsibility--a responsibility--to 
consider this carefully.
  Reference has been made to a number of things that were inaccurate. 
There was a reference made to having to shut down the Senate to get a 
process moving in one of the second-phase investigations. The staff 
work had essentially been completed. The staff, under bipartisan 
leadership, had worked on getting that done. Shutting down the Senate 
was a great show, but it did nothing to move forward that particular 
phase of the investigation.
  Now, I want to see this committee--and I hope this body--operate on a 
bipartisan basis. But I was very disappointed when I saw that cloture 
had been filed before we even started the process of amendments. 
Cloture is necessary when you see there is a filibuster or you see 
there are nongermane amendments. some of the amendments are nongermane 
and I will ask that they be withdrawn or I will join in a tabling 
motion, but I think this subject, which has not been debated on the 
floor sufficiently in recent years, should be open to a thorough 
debate. We don't want to take up a lot of time. We need to get this 
bill to the House and work with them to get a good Intelligence 
authorization bill through.

  The insinuation that we got an order from the White House is 
absolutely without basis. They are working with us in a cooperative 
way, and I hope to move forward on this bill, which is now open for 
amendment and debate. I look forward to the opportunity to proceed with 
that debate and votes on the bill.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the senior 
Senator from Missouri, but his facts are all messed up. We tried to 
bring this bill to the floor for a full debate. In the Senate, as 
everyone knows, you have to move to proceed to the bill. We did that. 
They objected. We had to file cloture on even being able to proceed to 
the bill. They initially said: We are not going to give you cloture. 
Then they gave us cloture. The purpose of that was to stall for time. 
They voted to proceed. I said immediately: Why waste the 30 hours? The 
rule in the Senate is you have 30 hours after you complete the cloture. 
I said: Offer amendments during this period of time. Don't waste the 
time. We could have done that last week. I told everybody. All the 
staff knew that: But no, nothing. I indicated we would be happy to do 
relevant amendments on this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent now that there be four relevant amendments in 
order for each side and that when they are disposed of, the Senate move 
to final passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I apologize.
  Mr. REID. I will repeat the request. I ask unanimous consent that 
there be four relevant amendments in order for each side and that when 
they are disposed of, the Senate vote on final passage.
  Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object, we have 35 amendments. There 
are 10 amendments which I believe have the support of the chairman and 
the vice chairman. I will be happy to work tomorrow with the leaders, 
with the chairman, to develop a list of amendments and get a time 
agreement. But

[[Page S4474]]

the whole purpose was to move this bill forward and find out what 
amendments are coming from both sides. I don't know about amendments 
from people who are not here.
  I object to that proceeding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me say, it is a funny way of wanting to 
move forward on this bill by stopping cloture twice during the last 30 
hours. I repeat, I said anybody who wanted to could offer amendments. 
We sat for 2 days doing nothing, for 30 hours doing nothing.
  I hope the distinguished Senator from Missouri and my friend, my dear 
friend for life, the junior Senator from West Virginia, can work 
something out. That is why I moved to reconsider. I hope that on this 
very important piece of legislation, we are able to move forward. This 
has nothing to do with partisan politics. This is the security of our 
Nation and much of the world.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, I want to see this 
bill move forward. It is open for amendment and debate. I will work 
with the chairman, with the leaders on both sides to come to a short 
time agreement with amendments to be considered. If that cannot be 
accepted, if we have any indication that this bill is going to be drawn 
out, then I will work with the leadership to get us to a position to 
vote on the bill. I remain committed to seeing this bill go forward, 
but I believe we have the need for at least a day's debate. The 
objection to proceeding on the bill was withdrawn. There could have 
been debate on Friday, but we weren't in. Now we are back in session, 
and I hope both sides can come forward and offer their amendments and 
offer their debates, and have votes and move this bill to final passage 
and send it to conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. We weren't in session because there was no activity on this 
bill. No one was offering amendments. I would go one step further than 
the distinguished Senator from Missouri suggested. The amendments have 
been filed. Why don't we do the relevant amendments? I don't know how 
many there are. Let's do the ones that are in keeping with the rules of 
the Senate, go ahead and handle those, starting in the morning.
  That is all I have, Mr. President.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the role.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________