Security and Accountability For Every Port Act

SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT -- (Senate - September 12, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, everyone in this Chamber understands that we are in a political season. And that means we are going to be taking political votes. The amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota is indeed one of those votes.

Now, Senator DORGAN is a friend of mine. We have worked together on a number of important issues. But let's face it. This amendment doesn't really do anything. It creates the appearance of a problem and then purports to resolve that illusory problem. So there really isn't any point to the amendment. But we also know, that no Member wants to be portrayed in a 3O-second television commercial as having voted against U.S. ownership of port operations. So I recommend to my colleagues that they support this do-nothing amendment.

Let me explain why this amendment doesn't really do anything. This amendment says that after the date of enactment, the U.S. Trade Representative may not negotiate any bilateral or multilateral trade agreement that limits the Congress in its ability to restrict the operations or ownership of U.S. ports by a foreign country or person. But the fact is, our trade agreements do not prevent Congress from legislating on any matter, including ports.

First off, Congress can always override an international agreement by passing subsequent legislation. That is an elementary principle of constitutional law. Moreover, our standard implementing legislation for trade agreements expressly states that if a provision of a trade agreement is inconsistent with any provision of U.S. law, then that provision in the trade agreement shall not have effect. In other words, in the event of an inconsistency between a trade agreement and U.S. law, Federal law prevails over the trade agreement. Yet this amendment suggests that the U.S. Trade Representative can somehow transcend our Constitution and Federal law by negotiating a trade agreement.

That is ridiculous. It is false. But as I said, we are in a political season. So I suggest we accept this do-nothing amendment, recognizing it for the political act that it is, and we move on. It is critical that we move this important legislation through the Senate as soon as possible and avoid getting bogged down in politics.

http://thomas.loc.gov/