Ethics and Lobbying Reform

Floor Speech

ETHICS AND LOBBYING REFORM -- (Senate - June 28, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank Majority Leader Reid for trying to move this bill forward.

Second, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I have tremendous respect for my friend from Oklahoma. I regard him truly as a friend. We traveled to China together. He is a gentleman, and I don't think anybody doubts the sincerity of his conviction and his desire to save and not waste money.

Similar to Senator Reid, I am not familiar with the particulars of this provision the Senator wishes to put into the bill, but it seems reasonable. I have to tell my friend from Oklahoma, I don't want to see money wasted. I can tell him that in New York City, we are not wasting the money. In fact, the taxpayers of New York, the city where his one daughter and two of mine reside, as well as my wife and my parents and most of my family, we in New York don't like to see the money wasted. We think too much of it is spread all over the place.

I will tell him this: That the money that goes to New York is not wasted, No. 1. No. 2, there are areas that affect the whole country that will be held up. Port security--God forbid a nuclear weapon is smuggled into this country and exploded, God forbid. The more we delay on port security, the worse off we will be. Rail security, truck security, and cyber security are all part of this bill.

Similar to Senator Reid, it seems to me the proposal the Senator from Oklahoma is making sounds good. Why not have review? Money wasted on this vital area--it is akin to money from the DOD wasted because it is our defense, even though it is our homeland defense as opposed to our military defense--hurts all of us.

But I can tell him this: I have known Senator Reid a long time. The Senator from Oklahoma has known him a little less longer than I. When he makes a commitment to be serious about this issue and to look at it carefully and to give a colleague, such as the Senator from Oklahoma, a bird's-eye view of what happens in the conference and the ability to push and make changes, he is sincere. He is not trying to put one over and push this aside.

Also, I am not on the committee, but I will join my colleague from Oklahoma in wanting a review process. I would like to speak with Chairman Lieberman and other members of the committee as to why they didn't put this in. I don't know the reason for that. But I can assure him, as somebody who is involved in many parts of the Homeland Security bill because of the city and State from which I come, I will work with him because I hate seeing the money wasted. I hate it.

In New York City, we are spending money. New York City taxpayers and New York State taxpayers are spending money because we don't think there is enough. I will give one example.

I live in Brooklyn. There is the Brooklyn Bridge. Intelligence reports targeted the Brooklyn Bridge several years ago, and they know how they would try to blow up the bridge, which is by the two towers, the cables. It is a suspension bridge, the first one ever built. Every day there are two police officers at each end of the bridge. That is four police officers 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. We can't do it part time if terrorists are going to go after this bridge. So that is 20 police officers per week. It is five shifts to do it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That money is coming out of the pockets not of my friend from Nevada or my friend from Oklahoma but the daughter of the Senator from Oklahoma, my family, me, city residents. It is not fair.

This bill, in terms of helping deal with some of those issues, is important. In making our homeland secure, it is important.

So I make a plea to my friend from Oklahoma--and he is my friend and I think every bit of his intentions are honorable, as they almost always are--to let this bill go forward, to take the majority leader's word that he will look at this issue himself carefully and make sure the Senator from Oklahoma has the ability to look at it carefully because this bill has been delayed long enough and the heartfelt pleas of the people who Senator Reid mentioned--I know most of them personally, I know about their losses, I know their families a little bit--are for real, as are the pleas of everybody else who is involved.

So I ask my colleague to consider lifting his objection and letting us move forward. There will be plenty of time to object if the conference committee doesn't treat him fairly. He can slow this place down and slow the bill down at that point and have the same effect as doing it now, and we might be able to move forward with the legislation.

Source