Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007--Continued
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007--Continued -- (Senate - April 16, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was fortunate enough to serve on the Intelligence Committee for 4 years and served with the Senator from West Virginia, as well as the Senator from Missouri. It is one of the toughest assignments in the Senate. It is time consuming. It is demanding. It takes a long time to even understand the nature of our intelligence community and the valuable work they do.
I salute all members of the Intelligence Committee on both sides of the aisle for sticking with it. They do not get a lot of public attention because these hearings and deliberations are behind closed doors. This is classified information. It is critically important for the security of the United States of America that this Intelligence Committee work and work closely with the intelligence agencies.
I want to say a word on behalf of the chairman of this Intelligence Committee on the Senate side, Senator Rockefeller. I cannot think of a person who has put in more time--certainly on our side of the aisle but in the Senate--dedicated to doing this job right. It must be next to impossible to keep up with everything else he has to do, but he has dedicated himself to this. I know how much this bill means to him.
This reauthorization bill for the intelligence agencies is critically important to him personally, but, more importantly, it really means so much for our Nation. If our intelligence does not get it right, we are more vulnerable. If we are more vulnerable, it means that not just people living in Springfield, IL, but our troops in the field are more vulnerable. So he has worked overtime to bring this intelligence authorization bill to the floor in a spirit of bipartisanship, as he described.
This amendment, which was just stopped by this procedural motion, is a bipartisan amendment. It is from both the chairman of the committee, Senator Rockefeller, and the vice chairman of the committee, Senator Bond--Democrat and Republican. I believe him when he says he has worked in a spirit of compromise to try to find a reasonable position.
Now, when we offer this amendment, this substitute amendment, to the Senate, and say, if you have something you want to offer to improve it--Senator Reid said that earlier--I cannot think of a fairer way to approach an issue, which should not be political at all.
One amendment was offered. It is my understanding only one amendment was offered. It looked like we were finally going to get this reauthorization of intelligence agencies that are so important for our security. Along comes this procedural vote, which should have been a toss-away vote. It ends up virtually stopping the debate on this critical bill. Why? I cannot understand it.
We have said: Offer your amendments, and only one amendment was offered. Senator Rockefeller has worked with the Republican side of the aisle for a bipartisan approach. You have given; the other side has given. It
was a good spirit of compromise, cooperation. That is what people want. Certainly, when it comes to the security of our Nation, you do not expect us to come in as Democrats and Republicans. We have a lot more responsibility.
So what happened now? When we tried to bring this to a point where it could pass, where the amendments would be limited to the most germane amendments that really get to the heart of the issue, the other side of the aisle, voted no, and now we are stuck.
They knew what they were doing. They were trying to kill this bill. But why would they want to stop this bill? This is a good bipartisan bill essential for the security of America that had been arrived at in a bipartisan manner, and they stopped it. I do not understand that.
I salute Senator Rockefeller for his leadership. I understand his frustration. Certainly, the people who depend on us in the Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, to keep America safe were let down by this vote where the overwhelming majority of Republican Senators voted no.
Source