[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17870-17872]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       ETHICS AND LOBBYING REFORM

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we had a number of conversations this 
afternoon on the floor about ethics and lobbying reform. We are not 
going to move on that anymore today. We will renew our request 
tomorrow, until we get this done. I hope we can get it done. It is 
really important for the country.
  Mr. President, I am reading now into the Record a statement that was 
issued today. I received it in my office, as all Senators did:

       Statement on status of 9/11 Commission recommendations 
     bill, dated June 28, 2007.
       The 9/11 families are grateful to Congressional Leadership 
     for taking the difficult step of removing a controversial 
     labor provision from pending security legislation intended to 
     implement the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations.

  I will read that again; I didn't do a very good job of it.

       The 9/11 families are grateful to Congressional Leadership 
     for taking the difficult step of removing a controversial 
     labor provision from pending security legislation intended to 
     implement the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations. We 
     recognize that this was a difficult decision for them, 
     considering their party's longstanding dedication to the 
     principles involved.
       Passage of this bill is long overdue, particularly in light 
     of bipartisan support at the bill's inception in both the 
     House and Senate. The Democrats have taken an important step 
     toward improving our national security by removing what the 
     opposition identified as an impediment to the bill's passage.
       Senate Republican leadership must, in turn, stop blocking 
     the naming of conferees so that this critical legislation can 
     move forward. Similarly, the Administration should cease its 
     threats to veto legislation regarding the provisions that go 
     to the heart of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
       Everyone must work together. The safety and security of our 
     country is at stake.

  This is signed by Carol Ashley, whose daughter Janice was lost in 
that terrorist attack of September 11; Rosemary Dillard, who is the 
widow of Eddie, who was killed in that terrorist attack; Beverly 
Eckert, who is the widow of Sean Rooney, who was killed in that attack; 
Mary Fetchet, the mother of Brad, who was killed in that terrorist 
attack; Carie Leming, whose daughter Judy was killed in that terrorist 
attack; and Abraham Scott, the widower of Janice, who was killed in 
that attack.
  These are members of organizations that have been steadfast in making 
sure everything is done so that we don't have other terrorist attacks 
and that we implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Those 
organizations are Voices of September 11th, 9/11 Pentagon Families, and 
Families of September 11, which are organizations well known throughout 
the country.
  Earlier this spring, the Director of National Intelligence, ADM Mike 
McConnell, told our Armed Services Committee in a public hearing that 
al-Qaida's franchise is growing and its leadership remains alive and 
well along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and that any new attack on 
the United States ``most likely would be planned and come out of the 
[al-Qaida] leadership in Pakistan.'' We think that is incredible. 
Almost 6 years after 9/11, we face the same threat we faced that day: 
Osama bin Laden and a determined extremist group intent on harming 
Americans. Unfortunately, it is painfully clear that much more can and 
must be done to protect America from terrorist attacks.
  Three years ago, the bipartisan 911 Commission recommended ways to 
strengthen our defense against terrorism. Unfortunately, the Bush 
administration and the Republican-controlled Congress failed to act on 
most of these recommendations. That is why one of the first bills 
passed in the House and the Senate at the start of this session of 
Congress would finally and fully implement the unanimous 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  As my colleagues know, since we acted on a broad bipartisan basis, 
House and Senate Democrats and Republicans have worked tirelessly to 
resolve the differences over this bill and get it to the President's 
desk so it can be signed into law. However, twice this week, my 
Republican colleagues have objected to moving forward so we can 
complete action on this bill.
  On Tuesday, a Republican Senator made it clear for the record that 
the Republicans objected to proceeding to conference because of a 
provision in the bill regarding TSA screeners, which had prompted the 
President to issue a veto threat on the bill.

[[Page 17871]]

  Although the provision would improve efficiency, morale, and skills 
of TSA screeners, President Bush strenuously opposed it.
  In an effort to demonstrate our commitment to completing this 
important legislation as quickly as possible, we informed our 
Republican colleagues we were prepared to address their objections and 
remove this provision during conference negotiations. But my Republican 
colleagues apparently decided to shift the goalposts.
  Yesterday, when I asked for consent to proceed with the commitment 
that the TSA provision not be included in the conference, Senator Lott 
objected on behalf of Senate Republicans. But this time he would not 
say why he objected. He just objected.
  Once we made our intentions clear about their expressed concern, I 
certainly don't understand why my Republican colleagues continue to 
object to moving forward to complete action on this bill. Why do they 
keep shifting the goalposts? Of what are they afraid?
  This strange behavior is not lost on the American people. Today, 
representatives of the 9/11 victims, their families, let their views be 
heard. I have read their statement into the Record. The American people 
expect us to finish this work as rapidly as possible.
  There can be little doubt that America will be more secure when this 
bill is signed into law. That is why I believe we need to take the next 
procedural step as part of our regular order, which is to appoint 
conferees to finish these negotiations.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I make the following unanimous consent 
request: That the homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 
be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1 and that the Senate 
then proceed to its immediate consideration--I am sorry, whenever I see 
that H.R. 1, it confuses everybody; that is what we did that the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration; that all after enacting clause 
be stricken and the text of S. 4, as passed in the Senate, on March 13, 
be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time, 
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the 
Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with the above occurring 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oklahoma object?
  Mr. COBURN. I object.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, does the Senator from Oklahoma wish to make 
a statement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader, I do not 
mean to delay this bill. I am on that subcommittee. I worked hard on 
this bill. I agree with the majority leader that many of those 
recommendations need to go forward.
  This bill spends $12 billion over the next 3 years. We have worked 
tirelessly and worked hard. Mr. President, $9 billion of that $12 
billion is grants. It is certainly not in the best interest of those 
most at risk, but I lost that fight. So I am willing to let that go. 
But the postgrant review process, which we asked for and were told 
would be in the bill before we went to conference, is not in it. Every 
time we ask about it, we get pushed back.
  Until we look at how we are going to spend the money, until we can 
satisfy that, I don't believe we are ready to go to conference, and I 
also believe there are still some problems with ports in terms of 
solving those problems and some of the tier 1 issues we have.
  My objection is not meant to be dilatory or anything else, other than 
to make the point that if we are going to spend $9 billion in grants to 
carry these recommendations out--and that is a small portion of the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but it is the $9 billion--and 
we refuse to have a postgrant auditing process where we look to see--
because we know from what IGs have told us and the GAO, much of the 
money we have been spending post-9/11 has been wasted, and it hasn't 
gone to prevent the next terrorist act.
  I have a personal interest as well. I have a daughter who lives in 
New York City. I want her protected. I don't want to do something that 
might stop that, but we have to do it in a way that makes us good 
stewards of the taxpayers' money.
  That is my reason for objecting. It is not on behalf of the 
Republican leadership. It is on behalf of myself and my staff in trying 
to get good value for our money.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say through the Chair to my friend, I 
guess I will ask the question: Who have you talked to who said you 
can't have this postaudit program in the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma can answer the 
question of the majority leader.
  Mr. COBURN. My staff has relayed to me, the Federal Financial 
Management Subcommittee minority staff, who have been working on this 
issue since we passed the bill, relayed to me before I came over that 
they still will not grant us that access in the bill.
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to work with Senator Lieberman. He is a 
person who has a reputation for being fair. He would be the chair of 
this conference, as far as I know.
  I say to my friend, I will be happy to take a look at this issue--no 
guarantees. It sounds reasonable what the Senator is asking. I ask of 
the Senator, let us go to conference. If something comes back out of 
conference--I will personally look into this. I will talk with Senator 
Lieberman about this issue. I don't know the bill that well because it 
has been through a committee of which I have no knowledge. But give us 
a chance. I don't know who the distinguished Republican leader will put 
on the conference. This is going to be a real conference, an open 
conference, where people will be able to, in a public meeting, say: I 
want to offer this amendment, and then the conference can either accept 
it or reject it.
  I think the Senator from Oklahoma should give us a chance. This is an 
important issue. There are provisions that should be implemented--
should have been implemented a long time ago.
  I recognize that the Senator has a daughter in New York. I have 
listened to my colleague, the senior Senator from New York, on more 
than one occasion about what the people of New York went through, we 
all went through. America through long-lens glasses watched what 
happened on 9/11. These people in New York, widows and widowers--and I 
read their names into the Record--have a better feeling about these 
issues and we need to get this done.
  I commit to my friend, the junior Senator from Oklahoma, that I will 
personally take a look at this issue. I know how thoughtful he is and 
how he feels about the money that is spent by the American taxpayers. I 
will make every effort to make sure the Senator from Oklahoma is 
treated fairly. Even though he is not a member of the conference, I 
will arrange it, if he is not on the conference committee, he can come 
and talk to the conferees. I will do whatever I can to help alleviate 
any of the concerns he has.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank Majority Leader Reid for 
trying to move this bill forward.
  Second, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I have tremendous respect 
for my friend from Oklahoma. I regard him truly as a friend. We 
traveled to China together. He is a gentleman, and I don't think 
anybody doubts the sincerity of his conviction and his desire to save 
and not waste money.
  Similar to Senator Reid, I am not familiar with the particulars of 
this provision the Senator wishes to put into the bill, but it seems 
reasonable. I have to tell my friend from Oklahoma, I don't want to see 
money wasted. I can tell him that in New York City, we are not wasting 
the money. In fact, the taxpayers of New York, the city where

[[Page 17872]]

his one daughter and two of mine reside, as well as my wife and my 
parents and most of my family, we in New York don't like to see the 
money wasted. We think too much of it is spread all over the place.
  I will tell him this: That the money that goes to New York is not 
wasted, No. 1. No. 2, there are areas that affect the whole country 
that will be held up. Port security--God forbid a nuclear weapon is 
smuggled into this country and exploded, God forbid. The more we delay 
on port security, the worse off we will be. Rail security, truck 
security, and cyber security are all part of this bill.
  Similar to Senator Reid, it seems to me the proposal the Senator from 
Oklahoma is making sounds good. Why not have review? Money wasted on 
this vital area--it is akin to money from the DOD wasted because it is 
our defense, even though it is our homeland defense as opposed to our 
military defense--hurts all of us.
  But I can tell him this: I have known Senator Reid a long time. The 
Senator from Oklahoma has known him a little less longer than I. When 
he makes a commitment to be serious about this issue and to look at it 
carefully and to give a colleague, such as the Senator from Oklahoma, a 
bird's-eye view of what happens in the conference and the ability to 
push and make changes, he is sincere. He is not trying to put one over 
and push this aside.
  Also, I am not on the committee, but I will join my colleague from 
Oklahoma in wanting a review process. I would like to speak with 
Chairman Lieberman and other members of the committee as to why they 
didn't put this in. I don't know the reason for that. But I can assure 
him, as somebody who is involved in many parts of the Homeland Security 
bill because of the city and State from which I come, I will work with 
him because I hate seeing the money wasted. I hate it.
  In New York City, we are spending money. New York City taxpayers and 
New York State taxpayers are spending money because we don't think 
there is enough. I will give one example.
  I live in Brooklyn. There is the Brooklyn Bridge. Intelligence 
reports targeted the Brooklyn Bridge several years ago, and they know 
how they would try to blow up the bridge, which is by the two towers, 
the cables. It is a suspension bridge, the first one ever built. Every 
day there are two police officers at each end of the bridge. That is 
four police officers 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. We can't do it part 
time if terrorists are going to go after this bridge. So that is 20 
police officers per week. It is five shifts to do it 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week. That money is coming out of the pockets not of my friend 
from Nevada or my friend from Oklahoma but the daughter of the Senator 
from Oklahoma, my family, me, city residents. It is not fair.
  This bill, in terms of helping deal with some of those issues, is 
important. In making our homeland secure, it is important.
  So I make a plea to my friend from Oklahoma--and he is my friend and 
I think every bit of his intentions are honorable, as they almost 
always are--to let this bill go forward, to take the majority leader's 
word that he will look at this issue himself carefully and make sure 
the Senator from Oklahoma has the ability to look at it carefully 
because this bill has been delayed long enough and the heartfelt pleas 
of the people who Senator Reid mentioned--I know most of them 
personally, I know about their losses, I know their families a little 
bit--are for real, as are the pleas of everybody else who is involved.
  So I ask my colleague to consider lifting his objection and letting 
us move forward. There will be plenty of time to object if the 
conference committee doesn't treat him fairly. He can slow this place 
down and slow the bill down at that point and have the same effect as 
doing it now, and we might be able to move forward with the 
legislation.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, if I might be recognized, I say to my 
colleague for New York, I have been working on this for 6 months. This 
isn't new. They knew this was coming. These are commitments that were 
made that were not kept. This is not a reflection on Senator Lieberman. 
This is a staff-driven problem. The only leverage I have to get staff 
to do what they are supposed to be doing is this.
  I apologize to the Senator and to his constituents. If my colleagues 
fix it over the break, when we come back, I would not have any 
objection.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Is that the Senator's only objection?
  Mr. COBURN. That is the only objection I have.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to Senator Coburn, I received a note. 
This is from Senator Lieberman's staff:

       We have worked very close with Senator Coburn's staff--in 
     particular his subcommittee staff director--Katie French. 
     Coburn's provisions were included in S. 4. The House 
     negotiators opposed them and after long negotiations Katie 
     signed off on our final agreement.
       Beth worked on this and will send more information in a 
     moment.

  It appears they have worked this out.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have no knowledge, I say to the majority 
leader, that has been worked out. The last memo I have from my staff 
director is that it has not. If that is the case, again, I will live up 
to my word that I promised the majority leader and senior Senator from 
New York that you would not have an objection from me--
  Mr. REID. If this is the case, tomorrow in the Senator's absence, can 
we go ahead with this bill?
  Mr. COBURN. If that is the case, then I don't have a basis for 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________