Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I switched my vote from an ``aye'' to a ``no'' vote for procedural reasons so that I would have the opportunity as leader to bring the cloture vote back at some time in the future. I did support cloture, but for procedural reasons I switched that vote to a ``no.''

What that means is that over the next several days, after talking to the four managers who are working together in a cooperative, bipartisan way, once we can put together a group of amendments and packages of amendments, I, in all likelihood, will bring that cloture vote back, and we will be on the glidepath to completing this very important bill.

Very quickly, and then I have a statement to make.

I would bring it back right now if I had the votes. We need to have the managers working together and stressing the importance that when we start our business, we need to finish it. This is no fault of the managers. They have done a superb job. We had a totally unrelated amendment injected, I believe, for partisan purposes. I say that and put it aside.

We need to get back to the bill as soon as possible. I encourage the managers to get the list of amendments, continue working, and at the first available time when we are allowed to proceed, we will be on that bill and we will finish it. I think we can finish it in less than a day.

What we have seen in the last hour is that there is a press announcement from DP World, and the Senator from Virginia, I believe, read that press announcement that ``DP World decided to transfer fully the U.S. operations of P&O Ports North America to a United States entity.'' I am reading from the press release.

This should make the issue go away. On the other hand, that was an hour ago. It brings me back to the point that the DP World issue and port security and the CFIUS reform is underway. The process is moving quickly. We don't have to have votes on the floor of the Senate and disrupt your bill, our bill, which is another very important issue that the Democratic leadership and ours agree should be early. This body wanted to have working groups and, under your leadership, hold hearings and come to the floor, so we are committed to finishing it. We don't need to be dealing with something which is being dealt with, as we see through press releases, through meetings with the company, and a port security bill that we are addressing in the Commerce Committee and the CFIUS process reform being addressed in Banking Committee. That is underway.

We don't need to disrupt the bill. I think the distinguished manager and I are on the exact same page. Within several days, I think we will be able to work this out. I encourage the managers to work together so that when we bring it back, we can finish expeditiously. Next week, we have the budget and the debt ceiling and lobbying reform.

With all due respect, there is no reason to give that assurance now. This is on a glidepath, based on what we have heard in the last 2 hours, to take care of itself. Again, it is through no fault of the managers of lobbying reform--on either side of the aisle--that we are where we are today. It is because we have had this extraneous issue injected into the system, which gummed up the works, and it is being resolved as we speak.

I just wish that amendment had not come to the floor. We were the first to put lobbying reform on the Congress's agenda. We were first to hold hearings, under the leadership of the distinguished chairmen. We were the first to mark up and the first to act, all as a result of the majority deciding that this is an important issue. The issue of Government reform is a key agenda item to help restore trust and faith in our Government.

I have to say that yesterday was a spectacular display, with the Senator from New York taking advantage of the goodwill that had been generated as we were moving forward together, which has led us to the point that we have had the cloture vote today.

I have been crystal clear throughout that when it comes to the port deal, Congress needs all of the facts. We don't have all of the facts. We are learning about them through press releases as we speak. But we are getting the facts by having this 45-day intensive review period, focused on the security issue. I think Congress is, at the appropriate time, going to need to make an independent judgment. Obviously, I don't believe it is today because we don't have the facts today. To take people in this body and say let's vote on something, let's kill the deal, or let's grandstand on it is just not appropriate for this body. Let's get the information into the system, and that strategy is underway.

Mr. President, we will keep working. We have a lot to do, and I look forward to staying above the issues of gumming up the system and let's move forward as we address these important issues that focus on restoring trust in this Government--lobbying reform, the bill at hand, and the budget of the country, which we will do next week, and facing the debt ceiling limit and taking appropriate action both in discussing and passing a statute that will raise that ceiling.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday, I filed the Online Freedom of Speech Act as an amendment to the lobbying reform bill.

This morning, the House Administration Committee will mark up identical legislation. We expect the House to act as early as next week to pass this vital protection of free speech.

Thomas Jefferson once quipped that, ``Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.''

But despite his low opinion of the press, he also observed that, ``Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.''

From the earliest days of our Republic, freedom of speech and freedom of the press--be they anonymous pamphlets, celebrated essays, or local newspapers--were understood to be fundamental to the practice and defense of liberty.

Without the ability to convey ideas, debate, dispute, and persuade, we may never have fought for and achieved our independence.

Ordinary citizens--farmers, ministers, local shop owners--published and circulated their views, often anonymously, to challenge the conventional order and call their fellow citizens to action.

Indeed, as Boston University journalism professor Chris Daly points out, ``What we think of as reporting--the pursuit, on a full time basis of verifiable facts and verbatim quotations--was not a significant part of journalism in the time of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. . . . In historical terms, today's bloggers are much closer in spirit to the Revolutionary-era pamphleteers.''

And today, it is bloggers whom we now have to protect.

There are some who, out of fear or shortsightedness, wish to restrict the ability of our modern-day Thomas Paines to express political views on the World Wide Web.

They seek to monitor and regulate political speech under the guise of ``campaign finance reform.'' They argue that unfettered political expression on the Internet is dangerous, especially during the highly charged election season.

Needless to say, I stand firmly against these efforts to hamstring the Internet and squarely with the champions of free speech--whether that expression takes place in the actual or virtual town square.

Free speech is the core of our first amendment. And the Internet represents the most participatory form of mass speech in human history.

It is no accident that this technology was invented here in America. Freedom of speech is encoded in our DNA. It is what allows us to be uniquely curious, daring and innovative.

And it is no coincidence that Americans, steeped in the tradition of inquiry and rebellion, would give flight to yet another revolution on behalf of the principle we value most.

In an era where technology has made instant, unfiltered communication possible, I believe that the Congress has a fundamental responsibility to allow this new medium to flourish.

As an amateur blogger myself, and soon-to-be private citizen, I am committed to ensuring that the extraordinary explosion of political debate in the blogosphere is protected from meddling bureaucrats and regulators in Washington, DC.

I commented on this very issue on my own blog last week. Free political expression is not a narrow privilege but a fundamental right.

Back in April of 1999, when observers and commentators were only beginning to glimpse the rich potential of the Internet, Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls and David Weinberger posted the ``Cluetrain Manifesto.''

In it they said that, ``A powerful global conversation has begun. Through the Internet, people are discovering and inventing new ways to share relevant knowledge with blinding speed.''

Since then, the conversation has only grown.

While authoritarian regimes like Communist China struggle to control the information crossing their borders, millions of private citizens, typing away on their home computers, are engaged in millions of discreet and overlapping conversations, exchanging information, and circulating ideas.

As Americans, we should be on the side of this dazzling development. As citizens of the 21st century, we should recognize we have no power to stop it.

Brian Anderson of the Manhattan Institute points out that the Supreme Court has extended free speech to include nude dancing, online pornography, and cross burning.

It seems only reasonable that free speech should include the humble act of posting a blog.

Mr. President, this morning we set aside 30 minutes equally divided for morning business. Following that time we will return to the consideration of the lobbying reform bill.

Last night, the Democratic leader proposed an amendment which is the pending business.

The managers will be here shortly, and we expect that we will work out an agreement for a time certain for the vote in relation to that amendment.

Last night, they were also trying to line up some additional amendments for today. We will make as much progress as possible on the bill today. To do that, we are going to need a lot of cooperation from both sides of the aisle.

The managers of the bill are encouraged to work out short time agreements on amendments to provide adequate time to discuss the issues and also allow us to move the bill forward.

If we are able to finish the bill this week, we will need Members who have amendments to notify the managers just as soon as possible so they can be scheduled for debate and vote.

Finally, we will be asking for filing deadlines for all amendments, and we will attempt to lock that in for today.

I thank my colleagues for their attention and for their cooperation on this important bill.

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

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion on the bill to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, both the Democratic leader and I will have a few comments, but what I have just done is filed a cloture motion, which I have done so reluctantly because I really have been very pleased over the past couple weeks as we addressed a very important issue on lobbying reform and ethics reform, an issue that is critical to restoring the faith the American people really deserve to have in their Government. We have been working together, as I said, in a bipartisan way. I thought until a few hours ago we had a very good chance of completing this bill this week.

At the leadership level, we worked together very well, and the four managers--we have four managers because we merged the two bills--have been working together effectively and lined up a number of amendments to vote on today and tomorrow as well. As I said, I thought we would be able to finish it.

Having said that, what happened today is an amendment came to the floor under circumstances that I am not going to go through right now, but it is such that it really would take us off the course of this bipartisan lobbying reform bill. We had discussions as to whether that amendment would be withdrawn, but it was made very clear after the discussions among us that the amendment would come back later tonight, tomorrow, or the next day.

Again, this amendment has nothing to do with lobbying reform or ethics reform of this body, something that is important, something that is the business of the Senate right now on the floor.

So what I have done is filed a cloture motion which will ensure we finish this bill. We have had reasonable time for people to offer amendments, and postcloture, once cloture is obtained, germane amendments can still be considered.

Let me also add that we still have the opportunity to get the bill done. What I would suggest is that with this cloture motion, since it will ripen on Friday unless we are able to work out some other agreement to have it ripen before that, we do have the opportunity tomorrow to work over the course of the morning, really through

the day, and address amendments--we have to do so by unanimous consent--but address amendments on the lobbying reform bill.

The managers were about to have us vote on some other amendments which we would be able to vote on. It will take unanimous consent. We could bring them up one at a time if that is the case.

Without going into all the details of what happened, that is where we are today. The cloture motion now has been filed, and it does give us a road to completing this bipartisan bill.

I will be happy to yield to the Democratic leader for a comment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 366, H.R. 683.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 9. I further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators being permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, as we just heard, we were forced to file cloture on the lobbying reform bill. Under regular order that vote will occur on Friday morning unless and we intend to work out some other agreement.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, today we will begin a 1-hour period for debate prior to the cloture vote with respect to the LIHEAP bill. I ask unanimous consent that the 1 hour be for debate only.

Mr. President, I expect that vote to occur sometime shortly before 11 a.m. this morning. If cloture is invoked--and I hope it will be--then we will be working toward an agreement that will allow us to finish the bill as quickly as possible today.

We will be returning to the lobbying reform bill today. We will begin considering amendments. Therefore, in addition to the LIHEAP bill, we will have votes in relation to the amendments to the lobbying reform bill.

I also expect the Senate to recess from 12:30 until 2:15 for the weekly party luncheons.

I say again to all colleagues who want to finish the lobbying bill this week that we certainly want to allow adequate time for Members to offer amendments. I urge Members to come forward early. We would like to lock in a filing deadline as soon as possible. As a matter of fact, I hope that we could lock in a filing deadline for today and therefore give our managers their best opportunity to schedule consideration of the amendments as soon as possible.

Again, we expect to be working into the evening each night in an effort to finish the bill as soon as possible.

Mr. President, every morning we open the Senate by reciting, as we just did a few moments ago, the Pledge of Allegiance. Hand over heart, we pay solemn tribute to the American flag, that sacred symbol of America's history, values, and principles.

We are reminded that we are but servants, momentary players in the great unfolding of the American story. The flag--transcendent, noble, still--commands our humility and binds us in the common project of serving the body politic. It is with this understanding that, before Congress adjourns for the Fourth of July recess, I intend to bring the flag protection amendment to the floor.

The proposed amendment is simple. It is a one-sentence statement that reads: ``The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.''

Along with 80 percent of the American public and all 50 of our State legislatures, I believe the Constitution should allow laws that protect our flag.

Unfortunately, in 1989, the Supreme Court overturned 200 years of precedent and struck down all laws that prohibit flag desecration. I believe their decision was misguided. In my view, desecrating the flag is not speech but an act of physical assault. We know this when we see rioting mobs in foreign countries setting our flag on fire. We can see clearly that they are engaged in a specific act of physical aggression against our country and everything for which we stand. Whether inside or outside our borders, burning the American flag is intended to intimidate, not to engage in constructive speech.

I believe the amendment process is the appropriate remedy to the Court's 1989 decision. As Harvard law professor Richard Parker explains:

The amendment process is essential to the Constitution's

deepest foundation--the principle of popular sovereignty

affirmed in its first words, ``We the people.'' Making use of

this process reaffirms and thus preserves that foundation.

Since I first came to the Senate in 1995, I have supported a constitutional amendment to protect our flag.

The flag is not only the physical symbol of our Nation, our pride, and our in history, but also of our values:

freedom, justice, independence, equality, and, ultimately, we the people. Protecting the flag won't stop Americans from exercising their first amendment right to free speech.

Countless brave men and women have died defending the American flag. It is but a small, humble act to vote to defend it.

In the words of our esteemed colleague, Senator Hatch:

Whatever our differences of party, race, religion, or

socio-economic status, the flag reminds us that we are very

much one people, united in a shared destiny, bonded in a

common faith in our Nation and the profound belief in

personal liberty that our Nation protects.

I look forward to bringing the flag protection amendment to the floor for debate, and I am hopeful that we will be able to once and for all give the American people the opportunity to defend this noble symbol of our shared legacy.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 2899 and now call up amendment No. 2913 as the pending amendment.

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

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