Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my admiration for the Senator from Wisconsin. He is a champion of good government. I worked very closely with him on the McCain-Feingold bill, and I think the world of him.

I know the intent of his amendment is admirable, but I do not think it is workable. It is far too sweeping, and it will lead to all sorts of problems. There are literally millions of Americans who work for LDA registrants. For example, I would imagine that nearly every employee of a Fortune 500 company fits in that category. Many of those employees have absolutely no responsibility for the lobbying activities of their companies. They probably have no idea their company, their employer, is an LDA registrant.

That is why I do not think this is workable. I think it will create all sorts of inadvertent violations of this important law. What we would be doing, as the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, is treating rank-and-file employees as if they were registered lobbyists. That does not make sense.

The fact is, a lot of business in this country is done over lunch, an informal lunch. I have lunch occasionally with the union presidents from one of my shipyards. Is that all of a sudden going to become an offense under this proposal because the shipyard employs a lobbyist in Washington?

I think we need to think more thoroughly about the implications of this amendment. Its sweep is enormous. It brings millions of rank-and- file employees into the jurisdiction of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. I do not think that is addressing any problem.

Now, I do think it is important we strengthen this bill to make very clear that registered lobbyists cannot buy meals for Members of Congress. I support that reform. But let's have a sensible bill.

I do rise in opposition to the amendment from my good friend from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, first let me begin by thanking my colleague from Mississippi, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for his extraordinary leadership in bringing this bill forward. I also want to commend the ranking member of the committee, Senator Dodd. This has been an unusual and extraordinary experience where we have two committees that produced bipartisan bills with overwhelming support-- only one negative vote between the two committees--and have brought legislation to the Senate floor where it was married together and presented to the full Senate. I am very proud that there has not been a single party-line vote that has occurred as we considered this bill, both in committee--in my committee, anyway--and also here on the Senate floor. I do think this is a model for how the Senate should act, that we can act together in a bipartisan way and look at how much we can get done when we do so.

So I salute Senator Lott and Senator Dodd for their extraordinary leadership. I also thank the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, for all that he has done to advance this very important cause. Senators McCain and Santorum also were key figures. Senator McCain introduced one of the earliest bills. Senator Santorum brought

together a bipartisan group which agreed on certain principles that became the foundation of the legislation before us. The Senate majority leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator Reid, worked together to ensure that we would complete action on this bill. I must say, when the bill was pulled before, I was worried about whether we would return to finish the job. We have done just that, and I am proud of that activity.

This legislation is a strong bill. It may not be a perfect bill--we probably would all have different definitions of what a perfect bill would be--but it is a strong bill that I believe will help to enhance public confidence in the integrity of Government decisions. Let me describe some of the major provisions of the bill as approved and, in particular, the emphasis on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's provisions.

First of all, we greatly strengthened the disclosure required by lobbyists. The legislation requires quarterly filings rather than the present semiannual filings by lobbyists, and it ensures that the information is made available to the public on the Internet. We will have stronger, more accessible disclosure reports. This is important in terms of ensuring that there is adequate sunshine on these activities. Our goal, which would be accomplished by this bill, is to have lobbying disclosure reports on a searchable, easily accessible public database, so that the public can evaluate the spending that is occurring, and so that they know who is lobbying whom. I think disclosure is going to make a big difference, and we put some teeth in the disclosure process by doubling the maximum penalty for noncompliance to $100,000. I think that is going to provide ample incentive for prompt and full disclosure.

Another provision of the bill will provide for auditing and oversight of the lobbyists' disclosure reports by the Comptroller General, the head of the Government Accountability Office. The GAO will do some random audits, give us advice, and help us understand weaknesses in the current system.

Another important provision that really hasn't been discussed much on the Senate floor is that the legislation provides for mandatory ethics training for Members of Congress and congressional staff. I think this is important as well. I think a lot of times people aren't fully informed of what the rules are. We are going to require mandatory training for both Members and their staffs.

Another provision of the legislation addresses the so-called revolving door issue where Members of Congress and high-ranking staff leave Government for jobs focused on the institution in which they once served. We extend the cooling off period during which a former Member of Congress or a former senior executive branch official may not lobby from 1 year to 2 years. We also make an important change in the so- called revolving door provisions as they apply to senior staff. Right now the limitation is that a staff member cannot lobby the specific office for which he or she worked for a 1-year period. We retain that 1-year period--the cooling off period--but we extend it to the entire Senate or the entire body in which the staffer worked. So I think that is a significant strengthening of the revolving door provisions.

Our legislation also, for the first time, prohibits lobbyists from providing gifts and travel that Members and staff are prohibited from accepting under the ethics rules. The burden has always been on Members. We have a parallel requirement placed now, for the first time, on lobbyists, and I think that is going to make a difference as well. I am pleased that we adopted an amendment on the Senate floor to draw a bright line to make it clear that lobbyists cannot provide gifts to Members, including meals.

Another provision of our bill, this provision authored by Senator Coleman, would create a commission to look over our ethics laws and rules and to make recommendations to Congress by July 1 of this year on any further changes that would be appropriate.

Again, I think this is an excellent bill. It is an important step forward toward the goal of restoring public confidence in the decisions that we make.

Some people asked: Why does this matter? Why should we be even spending time strengthening our lobbying disclosure laws, prohibiting practices that might undermine the public's confidence in Government?

The reason this is so worthwhile and so important is that we cannot tackle the big issues facing our country if the public doesn't trust us to act in the public interests. Too often, the public is convinced that the big decisions are tainted by undue influence. Lobbying conjures up images of all-expense-paid vacations masquerading as factfinding trips, or special access that the average citizen does not have, or decisions that are tainted by improper influence. That means the public doesn't have confidence that we will do the right thing, that we will act in the public interest rather than to meet the wishes of some special interest. That is why this matters. The experts tell us over and over again that there are so many important issues--entitlement reform, for example--that we should be tackling. But if the public doesn't trust us, if the bonds of trust between public officials and their constituents are frayed, then it is very difficult for us to make the difficult choices, for us to make the hard decisions. That is why this matters. That is why this legislation is so important. In many ways, it is the foundation that allows us to proceed to tackle the challenges facing our great Nation.

I am very pleased and proud today that we have come together. I believe this legislation will be overwhelmingly adopted by the full Senate, and that is as it should be. I am also very pleased to see the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee has joined us on the floor. As I said earlier when he was not on the floor, he has been such a valuable partner. His commitment to good government and to repairing the public trust in government is second to none. It has been a pleasure to work with him as well as with Senator Lott and Senator Dodd as we brought forward this bipartisan endeavor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for a period of time not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. President, let me begin my comments by commending the Senator from Mississippi for his excellent statement. The Senator from Mississippi deserves great credit for working with his ranking member, Senator Dodd, to craft a lobbying reform and disclosure bill on the provisions that were under the Rules Committee jurisdiction. Similarly, I worked very closely with the ranking Democrat on the homeland security committee to come up with a bipartisan bill that reflects issues that are under the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The result is a strong bill. We have married the bills reported by the two committees on the Senate floor. We have produced legislation that I think would help to restore the public's confidence in the integrity of the decisions that we make in Washington. Some may ask: Why does this matter? Why should we enact lobbying disclosure and reform legislation? The reason is, if the public does not trust us to make decisions that are not tainted by undue influence from special interests, then we will not, as a Congress, be able to tackle the major issues facing our country. If the bonds of trust between those we represent and public officials are so frayed, then we are not going to be able to make the tough decisions, the hard choices that are necessary when tackling the big issues and challenges that confront our country.

The issues before the Senate in this bill are pressing and serious. Recent scandals involving Jack Abramoff and former Representative Duke Cunningham have brought to light the need for Congress to reevaluate practices that, although legal, raise questions about the integrity of decisions that are made or at least create the appearance of conflicts of interest and undue influence. We need to ban practices that erode the public's confidence in the integrity of Government's decisions. We need to have greater disclosure of the amount of money spent on lobbying and how it is spent. I think sunlight is the best disinfectant in many cases, and providing and requiring greater disclosure will make a real difference.

All of us here today recognize that lobbying, whether done on behalf of a business organization, an environmental cause, a children's advocacy group, an educational institution or any other cause can provide us with very useful information that does not dictate but does aid our decisionmaking process. We should remember that lobbying actually has a noble history. The word comes to us from Great Britain when individuals would gather in the lobby of Parliament in order to talk to members, and the medium of exchange was ideas and not favors.

Today, unfortunately, the word ``lobbying'' too often conjures up images of all-expense-paid vacations masquerading as factfinding trips, special access that the average citizen can never have, and undue influence that leads to decisions not being made in the public interest. The corrosive effect of that image on the public's confidence in the decisions that we make cannot be underestimated.

We in Congress have an obligation to strengthen that crucial bond of trust between those in Government and those whom Government serves. This legislation is a significant step in that direction, and we need to pass it promptly, without delay.

As my colleague, the Senator from Mississippi, has mentioned, there are some 77 amendments that have been filed to this bill. Many of them have nothing to do with lobbying or ethics reform. Others only have a very tangential connection. If we are serious about delivering lobbying reform legislation, if we believe that we need to clean up questionable practices, if we want to restore that bond of trust between the public and its elected officials, then we should move forward with this legislation without delay,

without extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with the issue before us. We can do this bill with a good day of hard work.

I thank the majority leader for bringing up the bill again, for recognizing its importance, and for working with the four managers of the bill to try to find a path forward. But we need cooperation from our colleagues and from the leaders on the other side of the aisle if we are going to be successful in doing so. I am convinced, as is the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, that in a day's time we can complete action on this bill and be on our way to conference with the House if we have a little cooperation from our colleagues.

Let's not fail this test. Let's not fail to get this job done. This matters. It matters because if we do not have the support of the American people, the trust and confidence of the American people, then we cannot tackle the major issues facing this country.

This bill would be a significant step forward in repairing the frayed bonds between the American people and their Government at a time when surveys indicate that trust in Congress is perilously low.

I hope we can come together. This is a bipartisan effort. Senator Santorum convened a bipartisan task force that has worked very hard and gave rise to many of the bipartisan principles upon which this bill is based. Let us work together on both sides of the aisle. We have bipartisan support. With the ranking Democrats, Senator Lieberman and Senator Dodd, with the two chairmen, Senator Lott and myself, we can get this job done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended and that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I do not anticipate taking the full 15 minutes,

but I did want to alert my colleagues to an amendment that I believe will be coming up this afternoon, or perhaps even later this morning. In any event, later today Senators McCain, Lieberman, and I will be offering an amendment to the ethics bill before us to create an Office of Public Integrity.

The American people view the way that we enforce ethics requirements on each other and on our staff as an inherently conflicted process. We set our own rules, we are our own advisers, we are our own investigators, we are our own prosecutors, we are our own judges, and we are our own juries. Even though we have some of our finest Members serving on the Ethics Committee, they cannot escape the perception that the process is plagued by conflict of interest. We do have extraordinary capable, ethical individuals serving on the Ethics Committee in the Senate. We are very fortunate to have a committee that works in harmony and that takes its job very seriously.

I believe we can preserve the important role of the Ethics Committee--and it is a vital role because the Constitution requires each House of Congress to discipline its own Members, if necessary, and we are going to preserve that absolutely critical role--but that we can make an improvement in the process by creating a congressional office, the Office of Public Integrity.

I emphasize this is part of the legislative branch. We are not talking, as some have, about creating an outside commission of judges and former Members of Congress and ethics experts. We are talking about recognizing that the Constitution clearly places responsibility within the legislative branch for taking actions, if necessary, against its own Members who violate the House or Senate rules. But we believe that process would be enhanced if we create an office of public integrity. It would be headed by a director who would be appointed by the majority and minority leaders of the Senate. That office would conduct investigations of possible ethics violations independent of any direct supervision by the Senate. So we would be assured that the public would perceive the process--the investigation--as more credible than now occurs when the Ethics Committee is investigating allegations against their colleagues.

I wish to point out, however, this is not the Shays-Meehan bill in the House, whatever the merits of that approach. This is a different approach from that taken by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Obama, and it is even different from the proposal Senator Lieberman and I advanced in the Homeland Security markup. We have refined it still further. We narrowed the authority of the Office of Public Integrity, and I think we struck exactly the right balance between the duties of this office and the duties of the Ethics Committee. This office would conduct impartial, independent, thorough investigations and report its findings to the Ethics Committee which then would retain authority to rule on the cases and allegations and decide what action, if any, is taken. This would enhance the public confidence that this investigation would be an independent one.

It is very difficult for us to investigate ourselves. There are friendships, there are inherent conflicts of interest. The Ethics Committee does a terrific job in the Senate. It has wonderful members serving on it, individuals of the highest integrity. But the public perception is always going to be that this is an inherently conflicted process because we are investigating ourselves. We are playing every role in the process. What we are trying to do is create an office that would conduct the investigation.

I know many of our colleagues are not comfortable with this concept. Some of them have compared it to the old special prosecutor laws. But that is not what we are doing. We are very carefully setting up a system of checks and balances with the Ethics Committee retaining all of the final authority to decide how to proceed, to decide whether subpoenas should be employed, to decide whether an investigation should go forward in the first place, and to decide the ultimate disposition of the case. The investigation would be done by this independent office.

I point out to my colleagues one of the advantages of having an independent Office of Public Integrity conduct the investigation. The public now is often skeptical of the findings and actions taken by the Ethics Committee. If the Office of Public Integrity comes to the Ethics Committee and says these allegations have been thoroughly investigated, we, an independent entity, have investigated these allegations and we find there is no truth to them, that finding is much more likely to be accepted by the public if the investigation is done by this independent office. It would have complete credibility. That would be a great advantage. It would remove the cloud of doubt and suspicion that often hangs over Members of Congress unfairly when allegations are made against them.

The reason the public often has those doubts is they know we are investigating ourselves. They know our colleagues are investigating allegations against their colleagues.

If we insert this Office of Public Integrity into the process, public confidence in the thoroughness, independence, and credibility of the investigations would be enhanced. It would in no way diminish the authority of the Ethics Committee to take the action, make the final judgments, and indeed judgments all along the way, on this case.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator McCain, and Senator Lieberman, I send a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, would the Presiding Officer review the time agreement that we are about to embark on for consideration of the Collins-Lieberman-McCain amendment?

Thank you, Mr. President. I was aware that was the case, but I thought it would be helpful to our colleagues to better understand the state of play.

Mr. President, I made some preliminary comments this morning. I do want to explain further the concept of the Office of Public Integrity, but I know the Senator from Illinois had asked that I yield to him some time. In the interests of accommodating his schedule, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois to speak in support of the amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his support. He has worked very hard on these issues. I appreciate his comments.

Mr. President, I yield to my partner and colleague from Connecticut, the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, Senator Lieberman, for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the side of the proponents?

Mr. President, I expect Senator McCain will be on the floor very shortly to speak in favor of the amendment. While we are waiting for his arrival, let me make a few more comments on the purpose of this amendment.

Even though we are so fortunate to have the Presiding Officer as the chairman of the Ethics Committee and some of our finest Members serving on the Ethics Committee, the fact is, that does not change the public's frustration or doubt about the process. The public views the process as inherently conflicted. The public believes that investigations of our colleagues by our colleagues raise obvious conflicts of interests.

No matter the incredible integrity of the Members who serve on the Ethics Committee, they simply cannot escape that problem of public perception. That is why Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and I have attempted to come up with a new approach in our amendment that is designed to restore the public's confidence in the ethics system. We do so by creating the new Senate Office of Public Integrity. This office would be headed by a Director, appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate upon the joint recommendation of the majority and minority leaders of the Senate. This individual would have a 5-year term and could be reappointed. This is not a lifetime appointment of someone who could somehow get out of control. This person would have to have a background suitable for the position, and it would take a joint agreement of the majority and minority leaders to appoint the person to the 5-year term.

I pointed out in my comments this morning that our proposal is not the same as the proposal advanced in the House by Congressmen Shays and Meehan, regardless of the merits of that proposal. It is not the version created or proposed by Senators Obama and Reid earlier. In fact, we have refined it from the proposal offered during the Homeland Security Committee's markup to try to accommodate some concerns that were raised by the Presiding Officer. But what this proposal does is recognize that the public does not have confidence in the current system.

We do not undermine the authority of the Ethics Committee. We recognize and appreciate the hard work of the Ethics Committee, and we realize the Ethics Committee alone should retain the ability to decide what sanctions may be appropriate for a Member who has been shown to have committed some misconduct. The Ethics Committee is involved every step of the way, as a safeguard, as a check or balance.

But I would ask my colleagues to consider allegations that may be raised against a Member and that are investigated by an independent Office of Public Integrity. Now, that office comes back and says: There is no merit to these allegations. That judgment is going to be readily accepted by the public because it has been rendered not by a group of us sitting in judgment of our colleague but, rather, by an independent Office of Public Integrity.

Again, if the Office of Public Integrity found grounds to continue the investigation, found probable cause, conducted an investigation and came to the Ethics Committee with its findings, it is the Ethics Committee and not the Office of Public Integrity that has the decision to make on what sanctions, if any, are appropriate.

I think we have struck the right balance. I think we have sustained the authority of the Ethics Committee, but we have also ensured that the investigations will be carried out by an independent Office of Public Integrity that would have the credibility to carry out this kind of sensitive investigation. After all, it is very difficult to investigate one of our colleagues.

We are fortunate because we know each other in this body. We have a

great deal of regard for one another. We are friends with the people with whom we serve. All of that helps make the Senate a more collegial body, helps us to get our work done. But it also raises questions in the mind of the public about whether serious allegations are independently and thoroughly investigated. I believe that is the advantage of the approach we put forward.

This is a modest proposal. We are not suggesting the Office of Public Integrity should provide rulings on ethics matters, providing advice. We are not suggesting the Office of Public Integrity would decide sanctions to be imposed on Members. We build in that that is the job of the Ethics Committee. We do not change that. But we do try to deal with the perception that the current process is inherently conflicted.

Let me run through how the process would work. Essentially, the office would do much of the investigative work that is now conducted by the staff of the Ethics Committee, with the notable exception, which Senator Lieberman mentioned, of ruling on requests for privately funded travel. The office would not provide advice or counsel. It would not issue advisory opinions. It would not have the power to enforce subpoenas. It could not make public the product of its investigations. And it could not directly refer matters to Federal or State authorities, such as the Department of Justice. All of those authorities would remain with the Ethics Committee.

I make that point because, perhaps due to the many different versions of this concept, as advanced in the House or by outside groups or by other Members, there is a lot of confusion over the duties and responsibilities of the Office of Public Integrity. So I want to make clear what the powers of this office would be.

What the office would do is accept complaints, and within 30 days of receiving a complaint would make an initial determination as to whether the complaint should be dismissed or whether an investigation is warranted. If the office dismisses a complaint, it may refer the case to the Ethics Committee to determine if the complaint is frivolous and whether sanctions should be imposed on the individual or the outside group filing the complaint. I think that is a big improvement on the current system.

If, after the initial inquiry, the office finds sufficient grounds to open an investigation, it would provide notice to the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee would then have 10 days to overrule that determination.

I want to make that point very clear, that the Ethics Committee can decide to overrule the decision of the Office of Public Integrity to pursue the investigation further or the Ethics Committee could decide to take no action at all, in which case the Office of Public Integrity, having found sufficient grounds to open an investigation, would proceed. If the office finds probable cause that a violation has occurred, the Ethics Committee would then have up to 30 days in which to overrule that determination or let it stand. If not overruled, the office then presents the case and the evidence to the Ethics Committee to vote on whether any rules or any other standards of conduct have been violated.

Again, you see that the Ethics Committee is involved at every single stage. There is a report from the Office of Public Integrity and an opportunity for the committee to overrule the Office of Public Integrity. That opportunity is always available.

Mr. President, I do expect Senator McCain will be joining us shortly. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that it be charged to both sides.

Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona, who is a key supporter of the amendment.

Mr. President, I found this debate to be both interesting and ironic. We have heard the proposed Office of Public Integrity described on the one hand as being a potentially out-of- control, independent counsel/special prosecutor. Then we have heard it described as a toothless entity that simply duplicates the work of the Ethics Committee and would have to check with the Ethics Committee at its every stage of the investigation.

In fact, neither characterization is an accurate one. Perhaps the best way to think of the proposed Office of Public Integrity is that it would be the investigative arm of the Ethics Committee. It would be an entity that would conduct a thorough, impartial, credible investigation of allegations and then report back to the Ethics Committee. It is essentially controlled by the Ethics Committee but has the ability to do independent investigations.

It is neither an out-of-control special prosecutor nor is it a powerless office that simply duplicates the work being done and that would be done by the Ethics Committee anyway. In fact, one of the opponents of this amendment said that they would create a duplicate investigation. I don't understand how that conclusion can be reached. There is nothing in this amendment that would require the Ethics Committee to conduct a parallel investigation, and why would they? We have already heard the Chairman of the Ethics Committee say that they do not do an investigation when there is a parallel Justice Department investigation going on. Why would the Ethics Committee choose to duplicate the work of the Office of Public Integrity? This bill does not mandate that the Ethics Committee throw all common sense overboard. So that argument simply does not hold water.

We have also heard it alleged that the Office of Public Integrity would make public information that is now confidential. But look at the plain language of the amendment. I am going to read it into the Record because this information to the contrary has been advanced on the Senate floor. Here is what it says: ``Disclosure.'' It is on page 11 of the amendment.

Information or testimony received, or the contents of a

complaint or the fact of its filing, or recommendations made

by the Director to the committee, may be publicly disclosed

by the Director or the staff of the Office only--

I am going to underscore that, Mr. President.

--only if authorized by the Select Committee on Ethics of the

Senate.

I don't know how it could be more clear, that the decision on disclosing information on the investigation cannot be made unilaterally by the Office of Public Integrity. Under our amendment, the Ethics Committee, not the Office of Public Integrity, has the sole authority to determine what parts of an investigation, if any, become a matter of public record. The OPI has no such authority. The language could not be more clear on that point.

Second, although a vote of the Ethics Committee to overrule the Office of Public Integrity would be made public, that is because such a vote would end the case. In other words, the Ethics Committee would not be voting publicly multiple times on a particular investigation at every stage--contrary to the information, or the argument that was advanced earlier by the distinguished chairman of the Ethics Committee. This is how it would work. The Ethics Committee would vote only once, either to overrule the Office of Public Integrity, which it can do at any stage of the investigation, or at the end of the investigation the committee would vote on a final determination of whether a violation has occurred.

I realize that Members have very strong views on this issue. I realize there are legitimate differences of opinion. I recognize that this is a difficult issue. But I hope that Members will look at the actual language of the amendment that Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and I have advanced. I recognize that there is a reason there is considerable confusion. There are all different versions of entities similar to the Office of Public Integrity that we are proposing. But we have drafted our proposal very carefully not to undermine the good work of the Ethics Committee, not to take away the final decisionmaking from the Ethics Committee but to promote public confidence in the integrity and the credibility of investigations by having this office, the Office of Public Integrity, conduct the investigation.

Will the Presiding Officer inform me how much time is remaining on the proponents' side.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, we are faced with a choice. We have the opportunity to pass significant legislation to strengthen our lobbying disclosure laws to ban practices that raise questions about undue influence of special interests and to strengthen the enforcement of those laws. Even without the Office of Public Integrity, I believe we have produced a good bill. But I believe that our legislation will be incomplete if we do not act to strengthen the enforcement process. I believe, after much study, that the best way to do this is to create an Office of Public Integrity.

That is not in any way to indicate a lack of appreciation for the hard work of the fine members of our Senate Ethics Committee under the leadership of two individuals with great integrity. I understand that it is a thankless job to serve on the Ethics Committee, and contrary to the comment that was made earlier in the debate, I believe that this office, by conducting the investigative portion, by assisting the Ethics Committee in investigating allegations, would actually be of great assistance to the Ethics Committee.

The chairman of the Ethics Committee has expressed, time and again, his frustration that the public does not know of the work the Ethics Committee does. It doesn't realize how seriously the investigations and allegations are treated; that it doesn't appreciate how difficult it is to pursue allegations against Members with whom one serves. I suggest that this amendment offers great assistance to the Ethics Committee. If there is an Office of Public Integrity which is conducting independent investigations and reporting its findings to the Ethics Committee, I think that enhances the public's understanding of the process, the public's acceptance of the process, and the credibility of the investigations.

We are dealing with a reality that public confidence in Congress is very low. It is perilously low. It makes it difficult for us to pass legislation because the public believes that oftentimes our decisions are not in the public interest but, rather, beholden to some private interest. That saddens me because I know the people I serve with are individuals of great integrity, and the vast majority of elected officials in Washington and elsewhere are in public service for all the right reasons. But that perception is a reality we need to deal with. The best way to deal with it, in my judgment, is to pass strong, comprehensive legislation which will help repair the frayed bonds between the public and those who serve the public.

The Office of Public Integrity is an integral part of achieving that goal. There is a lot of opposition to this amendment. I don't delude myself to the contrary. I have learned organizational change in Washington is the hardest kind of change to accomplish. I learned that when Senator Lieberman and I led the legislation restructuring and reforming our intelligence community, the most sweeping reforms in 50 years. I have learned trying to change the organization of Congress or the way Congress works makes that reorganization of our intelligence community look easy.

I recognize this is an uphill fight, but I believe it is the right thing to do. I hope our colleagues, before casting their vote today, will take the time to read the actual language of the amendment and to think about what we need to do to repair the breach between those who are elected and the people we serve, to promote and strengthen public confidence in the political process. I believe if our colleagues do that and if they care about restoring public confidence in Congress, they will support the amendment we have offered.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, to clarify our situation, if I may, if the Presiding Officer would tell me if I am correct that there is still an amount of time remaining to the proponents of the Collins-Lieberman- McCain amendment.

And I believe the time of the opponents has expired, the time that was controlled by Senator Voinovich; am I correct?

And I believe there is a parallel time agreement for further debate on the Wyden amendment; am I correct?

Mr. President, I am going to reserve my 6 minutes for right before the vote for some concluding comments. I probably will not use all 6 minutes. I have no objection to turning now to the debate on the Wyden amendment.

Amendment No. 2944

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, shortly we will vote on the Wyden- Grassley amendment. First, we will vote on the Collins-Lieberman-McCain amendment which is the second-degree amendment. I applaud the initiative of Senators Wyden and Grassley. When this amendment first came up, I spoke in favor of it. I believe we do need to end the practice of secret holds.

I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the Wyden- Grassley amendment.

Let me say a few final words about the amendment Senators

McCain, Lieberman, and I have proposed to create an office of public integrity. We are about to vote on that amendment, and then we will proceed to vote on Senator Wyden's amendment.

I believe our proposal has struck the right balance. I draw this conclusion, in part, because my colleagues who are opposed to the amendment are arguing two conflicting extremes, and both obviously cannot be right. On the one hand, some of my colleagues are disparaging the Office of Public Integrity by calling it an independent counsel, by implying that it would be a too powerful, out-of-control entity that would conduct unfair investigations and put Members in peril.

On the other hand, we have also heard colleagues during this debate say that the Office of Public Integrity would not have enough power because it can be overruled by the Ethics Committee. These two conflicting and inconsistent positions suggest that, in fact, we have struck the right balance. We have respected the role and the authority of the Ethics Committee, but we have strengthened the credibility of the investigative part of an inquiry into allegations of wrongdoing.

At the end of the day, the debate and vote on our proposal comes down to a simple question. That is, what are we going to do to strengthen public confidence in the integrity of this institution? Regardless of how fine a job the Ethics Committee has done--and it has performed well--the fact remains that public confidence in Congress is near an all-time low. I believe the legislation that we have brought forth to strengthen our lobbying disclosure laws, to prohibit practices that raise conflicts of interest and, with our amendment, to strengthen the enforcement mechanism is critical to strengthening the bond between the people we serve and those of us privileged to be elected to public office.

I urge my colleagues to support the modest proposal for a well balanced Office of Public Integrity.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I also ask for the yeas and nays on the Wyden-Grassley amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Multilateral Development Banks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 1439, the Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005, Titles II through VI.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``NSA III: Wartime Executive Powers and the FISA Court'' on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable Harold A. Baker, Judge, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana, IL; The Honorable Stanley S. Brotman, Judge, U.S. District Court of New Jersey, Camden, NJ; The Honorable John F. Keenan, Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New York City, NY; The Honorable Allan Kornblum, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida Gainesville, FL.

Panel II: Morton H. Halperin, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Executive Director, Open Society Policy Center, Washington, DC; David S. Kris, Senior Vice President, Time Warner, Inc., New York,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, 9:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Neutralizing The Nuclear And Radiological Threat: Securing the Global Supply Chain (Part One).''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in open session to receive testimony on Air Force and Navy tactical aviation programs in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007 and the future years Defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., on FAA Budget.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., for a hearing regarding ``Bolstering the Safety Net: Eliminating Medicaid Fraud.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in SD-430.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3066, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, which is cosponsored by my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman--we would like to add as additional cosponsors Senators DeWine, Snowe, Kennedy, and Menendez.

Mr. President, the Collins-Lieberman amendment would provide $986 million to help prevent terrorist attacks and to enable us to respond more effectively if one does occur. It enjoys the support of a wide range of first responder groups, representing our police and our firefighters.

Our amendment has two components. First, it restores funding to the fiscal year 2006 levels for key grant programs that assist first responders, as well as State and local governments. These are such programs as the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, the Metropolitan Medical Response System, emergency management performance grants, the FIRE Act, and SAFER programs.

As this chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service indicates, the aggregate difference between the fiscal year 2006 appropriated amount and the proposed budget request for this year is $395 million. Our amendment ensures that none of the programs listed on this chart would be funded at any less than the level that was appropriated for fiscal year 2006.

Last year, for example, Congress appropriated $550 million for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, a key source of assistance to State and local governments and first responders. This level, I point out, was only half of the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Communities use these funds for first responder preparation activities such as emergency planning, risk assessments, mutual aid agreements, equipment, training, and exercises.

It is important to realize that the biggest single expenditure of these funds is the purchase of interoperable communications equipment. Therefore, a vote for our amendment is a vote to increase funding for interoperable communications equipment for first responders.

Under the Collins-Lieberman amendment, we would also provide an additional $150 million for the State Homeland Security Grant Program to create a better national response system that will operate more smoothly at the Federal, State, and local level. Our committee's investigation into the preparedness for and response to Hurricane Katrina clearly demonstrated inadequate response and deficiencies in our ability to respond effectively to the

catastrophic events. This is not the time to reduce the Federal Government's commitment to national preparedness.

The budget also shortchanges first responders in other programs, such as the FIRE Act and the SAFER grants. We would take care of that as well as the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, one of the programs that focuses on preventing terrorist attacks.

Another important aspect of the Collins-Lieberman amendment deals with port security grants. Unfortunately, the administration's budget does not dedicate a separate funding stream for port security. Instead, it folds port security in with all other transportation and critical infrastructure, thus providing no assurance at all that any money will be provided to strengthen the security of our ports. The estimates are, from the ports administrators, that we need to have $400 million for port security grant funding. Because of budget constraints we don't go that far, but we do include dedicated funding, $300 million in port security grant funding. We have proposed an increase to move the funding level to meeting the identified needs and to help us improve the security of our ports.

There are so many needs, but we have worked very hard to keep the cost of our amendment down. It is fully offset. I hope our colleagues will support this proposal. It also provides funding for a number of other critical infrastructure needs, such as our Nation's rail and transit systems.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a message to our first responders that they are a top priority. The additional funding provided by the Collins-Lieberman amendment is an investment we simply must make to strengthen our ability to prevent, detect, and if necessary respond to attacks on our homeland.

I urge support for the amendment, and I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Robert Maxcy of Waldoboro, ME, who passed away this weekend at the age of 76. Bob served 56 years in the Waldoboro Fire Department, including the last 42 years as its chief, and I would like to recognize his lifelong devotion to public safety.

Chief Bob Maxcy was born on November 17, 1929, in Thomaston, ME, the son of the late Earl and Ruth Maxcy. At age 14 he began his service as a firefighter at the Thomaston Junior Fire Department. This was the beginning of his outstanding career in service to both Maine and the Nation.

Upon his graduation from Thomaston High School, Chief Maxcy served honorably with the U.S. Air Force from 1947 to 1950. During his service, Chief Maxcy attained the rank of gunnery sergeant.

When he returned to Maine in 1950, Chief Maxcy became a firefighter with the Waldoboro Fire Department. In that same year, he married his loving and devoted wife, Muriel. By 1964, Chief Maxcy had established himself as a leader in the department and was appointed chief of the Waldoboro Fire Department, a position in which he served for 42 years.

Beyond his dedication to his department, Chief Maxcy also was a leader in the community and the State, as evidenced through his participation in the Waldoboro Firemen's Association, Knox County Firemen's Association, Maine State Federation of Firefighters, and the Lincoln County Fire Chiefs.

Chief Maxcy was truly an honorable Maine man. In addition to his success as a community leader and firefighter, he will be remembered for his love of his family, the outdoors, and the Red Sox. Chief Maxcy is survived by five children, Deborah, Marcia, Marc, Dee, and Daryl; his brother, Harlan; his sister, Marilyn; his grandchildren, great grandchildren, nieces, and nephews.

Chief Bob Maxcy will be greatly missed. I offer my sincere condolences and prayers to Chief Maxcy's family.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague from Massachusetts in sponsoring this important amendment. I want to recognize that the Senator from New Hampshire is a longtime champion of education programs and, indeed, under President Bush, education programs have received considerable additional spending. But we can and we should do more. There is no greater investment in the future of this country than to invest in the education of our young people. This amendment would restore cuts and increase funding for absolutely critical education and job training programs in this budget.

Let me talk about some of those programs. Let's begin with the Pell Grant Program. Pell grants go to our neediest families. The average income of a family whose student is receiving a Pell grant is only about $16,000 a year. We are proposing to provide a $450 increase in the Pell grant maximum award. That would increase it from $4,050 to $4,500.

The maximum award has not been increased for 4 years, while the cost of higher education has skyrocketed. Let's look at the impact on students.

In 1975, the year I graduated from college, the amount of the maximum Pell grant award was sufficient to cover approximately 80 percent of the average costs of attending a public 4-year institution--80 percent. Today it covers less than 40 percent of those costs. That disparity means that higher education is further and further out of reach for too many low-income students.

Let's talk about the impact of another program. It is the TRIO Programs, the aspirations-raising programs. I know firsthand what a difference these programs make in my home State of Maine where too few families have experience with higher education and, thus, their children find higher education to be something unknown or something they are not sure they can handle.

These aspiration-raising programs give the mentoring assistance, the encouragement, the help that is needed so that talented young people realize that higher education is within their grasp.

The Upward Bound Program is a wonderful program that has changed so many lives. Just yesterday, I talked with a student from the University of Southern Maine who told me that but for the TRIO Programs, he would not today be in college.

The GEAR UP Program has been very successful in my State. I have met with members of the University of Maine at Farmington GEAR UP partnership which partners with the middle school in Dicksfield, ME. Listen to these results and I think it will help convince my colleagues of the need to maintain an increased funding for this important program.

When this middle school first got its GEAR UP grant in 1999, only 37 percent of the graduating high school students went on to postsecondary education--only 37 percent. But last June, the first group of students that had gone through the GEAR UP Program graduated. Mr. President, do you know how many of them went on to higher education? More than 82 percent. What a difference this program has made. It doubled the number of students going on to higher education. It has completely changed the aspirations of students growing up in this small rural community in western Maine.

Another important restoration in the Kennedy-Collins amendment is for vocational education under the Perkins program. Again, I have seen firsthand the incredible results of Federal investments in vocational education. The United Technology Center in Bangor is a wonderful example of a regional technical high school that encourages students to stay in school, to expand their horizons, and to gain new skills.

I visited the United Technology Center twice and, believe me, the Federal funding, the $171,000 that this school receives, is making all the difference in the lives of the students enrolled there. I saw an excitement about learning. I talked to students who told me that the standard high school curriculum didn't reach them. They are learning so much in this vocational education setting, and that Federal investment, again, changes lives.

I hope very much that we will adopt this amendment. The budget is all about setting priorities, and surely--surely--in this country we can make the investments we need to help our neediest students pursue higher education, to help families who may not have the experience of going on to college so they receive the encouragement, mentoring, and support they need, and to help our vocational education programs.

Finally, my State has seen a real loss of manufacturing jobs in the past decade. The workforce investment training programs have been essential in helping displaced workers start new careers and new lives.

I hope we will adopt this amendment. I think it will make a great deal of difference to individual families, to our States, and to our economy.

Mr. President, the need to more widely invest in education is widely recognized by our Nation's employers. We have seen recent

studies by the National Academy of Sciences warning that our country is losing its edge in math and science education. We have seen employer groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers call for greater investment. We have the opportunity to answer those calls by approving this amendment.

Prior to my election to the Senate, I worked at a college in Maine, and I saw firsthand how vital these Federal programs were. I hope we will adopt the amendment. It will make a difference to our families, our States, and our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Ms. COLLINS pertaining to the introduction of S. 2400 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reform and strengthen the national security review process for foreign investments in the United States. I am very pleased to be joined by three of my colleagues--Senator Lieberman, Senator Coleman, and Senator Akaka--in introducing this legislation.

In a global economy, foreign investment in this country is becoming increasingly common. The national security and homeland security implications of those investments must be

scrutinized by the departments with responsibility for those critical matters.

The controversy over the Dubai ports transaction has exposed serious flaws and shortcomings in the current law and process that is used to review foreign investments in our country.

In 1988, Congress passed the Exon-Florio provision of the Defense Production Act to get the President the authority to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger, or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten our national security.

Through an Executive order, the President gave a new committee--known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, often referred to as CFIUS--the responsibility of reviewing transactions pursuant to the Exon-Florio law and to make recommendations to the President.

The law is something of an anachronism because of what it doesn't say. It focuses on acquisitions of American companies that are either important to our military industrial base or have technology that could help a terrorist state develop weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, both of those concerns are very important. We do want to preserve our military industrial base, and we do want to safeguard technology that could help terrorists or anyone else develop weapons of mass destruction. But neither of those transactions or those requirements address transactions that could assist terrorists in threatening our security right here at home.

Obviously, there are other ways for terrorists to undermine our security that might be completely separate from the military industrial base issues or the technological issues related to weapons of mass destruction. In other words, the law is simply too narrow in its application. The current CFIUS process is not designed to analyze transactions that involve a port terminal or other critical infrastructures within our borders.

The Government Accountability Office, in a report issued last September, found that the Exon-Florio law's effectiveness in protecting U.S. national security may be limited--limited because the Department of Treasury, as the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, narrowly defines what constitutes a threat to our national security. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, focuses too much on the financial component and not enough on security.

I think that is what many of us concluded happened in the review of the Dubai ports transaction. The focus was on investment, needed investment in our ports, rather than being focused on the national security or homeland security implications that could possibly arise from that transaction. The committee is supposed to identify transactions that could affect our national security. It doesn't say ``harm'' our national security; it says ``affect'' our national security. That is supposed to be sufficient to trigger a full 45-day investigation. But, unfortunately, that is not initially what happened with the proposed Dubai ports transaction.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to a broader issue, and that is the composition of CFIUS. Remember, this is supposed to be a national security review, but who chairs the committee? Not the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense, not the Department of Justice. The committee is chaired by the Department of the Treasury, and chairing this committee is meaningful because the chairman's interpretation of the law, including the provision that makes a 45-day investigation mandatory in the case of foreign government control to entities that could affect national security, tends to govern. In other words, what the chairman decides in interpreting whether the 45-day investigation is triggered tends to be what happens.

I suggest to you, and to my colleagues that the system is fundamentally flawed if it has the Secretary of Treasury, no matter how capable and well qualified he is--and I believe he is all of those things--chair a committee that is supposed to be looking at national security. Thus, I believe the CFIUS process has been weighed too much toward investment considerations and not sufficiently attentive to the national security and homeland security implications. Indeed, the GAO found that Treasury is ``reluctant to initiate investigations to determine whether national security concerns require a recommendation for possible Presidential action.'' That is what GAO found, and that certainly seems to be an accurate finding.

These are concerns which we simply cannot tolerate given today's threat environment, and that is why I am introducing legislation to abolish the CFIUS process and to create a new interagency, interdepartmental mechanism chaired by the Department of Homeland Security to analyze transactions for both their homeland security and national security implications. Our bill is designed to fix the process through the following changes:

First, the bill would establish a new committee, the Committee for Secure Commerce, to replace the old CFIUS. The Committee for Secure Commerce would be chaired by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Defense would serve as the vice chairman. The Director of National Intelligence would be specifically designated as a standing member of the committee in order to ensure that important intelligence information is part of the deliberative process. The Department of Treasury will still be represented on the committee, but with respect to the other members, the President shall name the appropriate agencies and departments to sit on the committee. This is an important change because it helps ensure that the focus will, indeed, be national homeland security, and it corrects what I believe to be a major shortcoming in the composition of the current committee, and that is that the intelligence community is not represented. That is extraordinary, given the purpose of this committee.

Second, the bill would explicitly include homeland security among the factors the committee would evaluate in deciding whether to review or investigate a transaction.

Third, the Secretary of Homeland Security would establish a process by which the committee reviews transactions and would establish the role and responsibility of each member.

In addition, each member would establish the process and procedure by which each respective agency would conduct its review, sharing that with the other committee members. It is important that committee members each have a general understanding of the scrutiny being applied to a transaction both within their own agencies and across the government. Such understanding was not apparent in the current CFIUS process.

Should a transaction warrant an investigation, the bill would require the Director of National Intelligence to consolidate intelligence assessments.

Lastly, this legislation would strengthen the reporting requirements to Congress. The existing process lacks transparency and does not allow sufficient oversight. It may be appropriate for the reviews, which may involve proprietary data and classified information, to be conducted confidentially. However, it is wholly appropriate that Members of Congress be briefed in a timely manner.

The bill would also address the so-called Byrd amendment loophole, requiring an investigation where the entity would be controlled by a foreign-government. In looking at the plain language of the existing statute, a 45-day investigation should have taken place in the Dubai Ports World purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company. However, the Treasury Department interpretation of the statute for nearly 15 years has been contrary to congressional intent, and thus, Treasury found there was no need for the 45-day investigation. That so- called ambiguity has been clarified in our bill. The law requires a 45- day investigation in cases where an acquirer is controlled by a foreign government, as in the case of DP World, and the acquisition could affect the national security of the U.S.

It is important that Congress take action to reform the review process for foreign investment in the U.S. This bill provides a new structure, appropriately focused on national security and homeland security. I seek my colleagues support in moving this legislation forward.

The Dubai ports controversy may have temporarily or perhaps permanently been set aside, but that does not mean we should abandon the efforts to reform and strengthen the law to ensure a proper review of foreign transactions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reform and strengthen the national security review process for foreign investments in the United States. I am very pleased to be joined by three of my colleagues--Senator Lieberman, Senator Coleman, and Senator Akaka--in introducing this legislation.

In a global economy, foreign investment in this country is becoming increasingly common. The national security and homeland security implications of those investments must be

scrutinized by the departments with responsibility for those critical matters.

The controversy over the Dubai ports transaction has exposed serious flaws and shortcomings in the current law and process that is used to review foreign investments in our country.

In 1988, Congress passed the Exon-Florio provision of the Defense Production Act to get the President the authority to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger, or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten our national security.

Through an Executive order, the President gave a new committee--known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, often referred to as CFIUS--the responsibility of reviewing transactions pursuant to the Exon-Florio law and to make recommendations to the President.

The law is something of an anachronism because of what it doesn't say. It focuses on acquisitions of American companies that are either important to our military industrial base or have technology that could help a terrorist state develop weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, both of those concerns are very important. We do want to preserve our military industrial base, and we do want to safeguard technology that could help terrorists or anyone else develop weapons of mass destruction. But neither of those transactions or those requirements address transactions that could assist terrorists in threatening our security right here at home.

Obviously, there are other ways for terrorists to undermine our security that might be completely separate from the military industrial base issues or the technological issues related to weapons of mass destruction. In other words, the law is simply too narrow in its application. The current CFIUS process is not designed to analyze transactions that involve a port terminal or other critical infrastructures within our borders.

The Government Accountability Office, in a report issued last September, found that the Exon-Florio law's effectiveness in protecting U.S. national security may be limited--limited because the Department of Treasury, as the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, narrowly defines what constitutes a threat to our national security. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, focuses too much on the financial component and not enough on security.

I think that is what many of us concluded happened in the review of the Dubai ports transaction. The focus was on investment, needed investment in our ports, rather than being focused on the national security or homeland security implications that could possibly arise from that transaction. The committee is supposed to identify transactions that could affect our national security. It doesn't say ``harm'' our national security; it says ``affect'' our national security. That is supposed to be sufficient to trigger a full 45-day investigation. But, unfortunately, that is not initially what happened with the proposed Dubai ports transaction.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to a broader issue, and that is the composition of CFIUS. Remember, this is supposed to be a national security review, but who chairs the committee? Not the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense, not the Department of Justice. The committee is chaired by the Department of the Treasury, and chairing this committee is meaningful because the chairman's interpretation of the law, including the provision that makes a 45-day investigation mandatory in the case of foreign government control to entities that could affect national security, tends to govern. In other words, what the chairman decides in interpreting whether the 45-day investigation is triggered tends to be what happens.

I suggest to you, and to my colleagues that the system is fundamentally flawed if it has the Secretary of Treasury, no matter how capable and well qualified he is--and I believe he is all of those things--chair a committee that is supposed to be looking at national security. Thus, I believe the CFIUS process has been weighed too much toward investment considerations and not sufficiently attentive to the national security and homeland security implications. Indeed, the GAO found that Treasury is ``reluctant to initiate investigations to determine whether national security concerns require a recommendation for possible Presidential action.'' That is what GAO found, and that certainly seems to be an accurate finding.

These are concerns which we simply cannot tolerate given today's threat environment, and that is why I am introducing legislation to abolish the CFIUS process and to create a new interagency, interdepartmental mechanism chaired by the Department of Homeland Security to analyze transactions for both their homeland security and national security implications. Our bill is designed to fix the process through the following changes:

First, the bill would establish a new committee, the Committee for Secure Commerce, to replace the old CFIUS. The Committee for Secure Commerce would be chaired by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Defense would serve as the vice chairman. The Director of National Intelligence would be specifically designated as a standing member of the committee in order to ensure that important intelligence information is part of the deliberative process. The Department of Treasury will still be represented on the committee, but with respect to the other members, the President shall name the appropriate agencies and departments to sit on the committee. This is an important change because it helps ensure that the focus will, indeed, be national homeland security, and it corrects what I believe to be a major shortcoming in the composition of the current committee, and that is that the intelligence community is not represented. That is extraordinary, given the purpose of this committee.

Second, the bill would explicitly include homeland security among the factors the committee would evaluate in deciding whether to review or investigate a transaction.

Third, the Secretary of Homeland Security would establish a process by which the committee reviews transactions and would establish the role and responsibility of each member.

In addition, each member would establish the process and procedure by which each respective agency would conduct its review, sharing that with the other committee members. It is important that committee members each have a general understanding of the scrutiny being applied to a transaction both within their own agencies and across the government. Such understanding was not apparent in the current CFIUS process.

Should a transaction warrant an investigation, the bill would require the Director of National Intelligence to consolidate intelligence assessments.

Lastly, this legislation would strengthen the reporting requirements to Congress. The existing process lacks transparency and does not allow sufficient oversight. It may be appropriate for the reviews, which may involve proprietary data and classified information, to be conducted confidentially. However, it is wholly appropriate that Members of Congress be briefed in a timely manner.

The bill would also address the so-called Byrd amendment loophole, requiring an investigation where the entity would be controlled by a foreign-government. In looking at the plain language of the existing statute, a 45-day investigation should have taken place in the Dubai Ports World purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company. However, the Treasury Department interpretation of the statute for nearly 15 years has been contrary to congressional intent, and thus, Treasury found there was no need for the 45-day investigation. That so- called ambiguity has been clarified in our bill. The law requires a 45- day investigation in cases where an acquirer is controlled by a foreign government, as in the case of DP World, and the acquisition could affect the national security of the U.S.

It is important that Congress take action to reform the review process for foreign investment in the U.S. This bill provides a new structure, appropriately focused on national security and homeland security. I seek my colleagues support in moving this legislation forward.

The Dubai ports controversy may have temporarily or perhaps permanently been set aside, but that does not mean we should abandon the efforts to reform and strengthen the law to ensure a proper review of foreign transactions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.