Boxer's and Lautenberg's floor statements (lots of good info):
TAX RELIEF EXTENSION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005 -- (Senate - February 02, 2006)
Snip (Pages: S469 - S470)...
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend and colleague, and really, in so many ways, our leader in the Senate, and say to him before he leaves the floor how much we stand with him on these mine safety questions.
We Americans are just facing so many tragedies. My colleague reports on yet more deaths in the mines, deaths that are preventable if we do the right thing by our workers. We are mourning together today five more American soldiers killed in Iraq. We had an incident, a workplace killing in Santa Barbara where five or six people lay dead. It is tough times. But I want my good friend to know that we will stand with him on this mine safety question.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, if I might just take 1 minute, I deeply thank--as they say in the other body--the gentlelady from California, for her noble comments and for her support. The West Virginia delegation in the House and the Senate is pleased at her expressions of support. We are glad to have that support. West Virginia is proud of the California delegation, the delegation that stands with us in this hour of sorrow.
I thank the Senator from California for yielding and for her support.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise now to discuss an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Kerry and Lautenberg, which expresses the sense of the Senate that the White House should provide the public with a thorough account of the meetings that the President, his staff, and senior executive branch officials held with Jack Abramoff . The public's confidence in the Government has been rocked, rocked by the widespread reports of public corruption involving Jack Abramoff .
On January 3, Mr. Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud, tax evasion charges, charges that carry up to a 30-year sentence. He agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in their investigation of a number of public officials, and we don't know where all this will lead. I urge the Justice Department to continue its investigation into any bribery and corruption.
The damage to the public trust from the Abramoff scandal, combined with the recent prosecution of Congressman Randy Cunningham, and the indictment of Congressman Tom Delay is massive. The investigation by the Department of Justice has really just begun. But right now, sadly, there is a very low opinion of politicians, and trust must be restored with the American people. We cannot govern effectively without the support and confidence of the people. We are supposed to be their representatives. We owe them everything, and we must start with honesty, with ethics, so we can regain their trust.
If the people have lost confidence, we have to win it back. Every Senator I know has searched his or her records for contributions from Jack Abramoff , from his associates and the tribes he represented. Each of us has responded in our own way. But to my knowledge, we have all made our actions public. We have told our constituents what the situation is and whether we plan to do something about it.
In the State of the Union Address the President
said:
Each of us has made a pledge to be worthy of public responsibility--and that is a pledge we must never forget, never dismiss, and never betray.
Those are noble sentiments, very noble sentiments, and I challenge the President to live up to them. Where there is an appearance of impropriety, it is the responsibility of public officials to be open with the public and to clear up any questions that might exist. I know in my long career in elected life, and it is now more than 30 years of elected life, I have had to return contributions from time to time. I have tried to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. I have even recused myself on three occasions because I believed that was the right thing to do. But no matter what each of us does there will still be those who doubt us. It is the system. It is a system that is based on private financing, so it is very difficult, with that system, to gain the trust of the people.
But it starts with openness. It starts with transparency. We should each try to be as open as we can and make sure that, whatever we decide to do, the public is informed. It doesn't help to be secretive. It doesn't help to say: I don't have to do this; it is my right not to tell the public anything. It may be your right, but it does not make it right.
According to the press secretary of the President, Scott McClellan, the President does not know and doesn't remember ever meeting Jack Abramoff , and despite repeated requests the White House has failed to provide details of meetings between Jack Abramoff and the President and his staff. The problem is, more and more details keep coming out about the relationship between Mr. Abramoff and the President.
Starting in 1997, Mr. Abramoff claimed credit for procuring a letter from then-Governor Bush that praised the then-Northern Marianas Island Education Plan. In 2000, Jack Abramoff joined the Bush-Cheney transition team. Several colleagues of Mr. Abramoff ended up being appointed to key positions in the Department of Interior, the agency that regulates Indian gaming issues, central to Mr. Abramoff's lobbying business.
According to the Associated Press, Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team had nearly 200 contacts with the Bush administration in the first 10 months they were in office--200 contacts in less than a year, and nobody remembers anything? I mean it doesn't pass the smell test, to be crude about it.
By 2001, Mr. Abramoff appears to have been selling his clients access to the President. On May 9, 2001, the White House arranged an event on behalf of the group Americans for Tax Reform. That group is a very strong ally of President Bush. The event was attended by the President and a number of legislators. There is a trail of documents that shows that Mr. Abramoff asked some of his clients for $25,000 to go to that event, with the funds going to this Americans for Tax Reform.
I want to show you some e-mails because I think that tells the story better than anything. So here is what Mr. Abramoff asked in an e-mail to a representative of one of his tribal clients. These are Mr. Abramoff's words from an e-mail.
Americans for Tax Reform is bringing together the speakers of all Republican-led legislatures for a meeting with Bush and the congressional leadership. They have requested sponsorship ($25 K) from only four groups. Two of them will be major corporations and one will be Choctaw. Chief Martin will be coming to the event I expect. I told them that I would ask you guys to participate. The exposure would be incredible and would be very helpful. One of the things we need to do is get the leaders of the tribe (ideally the chief) in front of the President as much as possible. Please let me know as soon as you can. Thanks.
That is Mr. Abramoff to the representative of one of the tribes.
Let us see what that particular individual wrote to her tribe after she received Mr. Abramoff's e-mail. She wrote:
Attached is an e-mail from Jack Abramoff with the firm of Greenberg & Traurig. The chairman has agreed for the tribe to be one of the four sponsors of and participate in a White House event on behalf of the Americans for Tax Reform which is being held on May, 9, 2001 in D.C. Please immediately prepare a check made payable to Americans for Tax Reform in the amount of $25,000 and forward it to my office by Federal Express. Then Fed/Ex the check to Mr. Abramoff .
Just to finish this story, here we have a copy of the check Mr. Abramoff received from the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana in the amount of $25,000--selling the President of the United States and using Federal property.
The meeting was held in the Old Executive Office Building. In all, it appears that four or more of Abramoff's clients attended the event, and at least two claimed they paid the $25,000 requested. They paid that to get close to the President on Federal property. Jack Abramoff , as I said, delivered the President of the United States in exchange for his clients' contribution to the President's supporters. How many more Abramoff clients attended is not clear, and who paid money to attend the White House event is not clear. The White House claims it has no record of Mr. Abramoff attending, but Time magazine claims there is a photo of the President standing with Abramoff and one of Abramoff's clients.
This event alone warrants the President providing full disclosure of meetings with White House officials and Jack Abramoff .
But this was not a one-time event. The following year, Mr. Abramoff solicited money from his clients for another White House event in behalf of Americans for Tax Reform.
The public has more and more questions about the relationship between Jack Abramoff , the President, and his staff, but no answers are forthcoming. The President's refusal to provide additional information about these meetings has increased the public's distrust in the administration and our Government at large.
The President said some very noble words at the State of the Union Address. He said it was important for us to bring trust back. Yet we see no movement for transparency and openness.
The public has a right to know whom Mr. Abramoff met with, what they discussed, and whether improprieties existed. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, 76 percent said Bush should disclose his contacts with his aides and Mr. Abramoff . Two of three Republicans favored disclosure. Let me say that again. In the poll, two of three Republicans favored disclosure.
In fact, members of the President's own party in the Senate and in the House have urged the President to provide information to the public about this administration's dealings with Mr. Abramoff . I agree with them. All Government officials who serve the public must take all steps necessary to maintain their trust and confidence.
I hope my colleagues will support this important amendment which I plan to offer on behalf of Senator Kerry and Senator Lautenberg. It simply calls on the White House to immediately and publicly disclose each visit and meeting between Jack Abramoff and the President, White House staff, or senior executive branch officials.
Much is made about how Senators get an opportunity to fight for funds for their State. Senator McCain has derided this action. Senator McCain said earmarks right on their face are wrong. If you look at the number of earmarks Members of the Senate are involved in for our States--I know my colleague and I sit on the Public Works Committee. I don't need any lobbyist to tell me that I need a road in my urban area when one is broken down. I don't need a lobbyist to tell me that I need an HOV lane or a new water system or a new sewer system or a new school or a new senior center. It is my job to know that. Senator McCain thinks that is all terrible. But the bottom line is the number of earmarks pales in comparison with the amount of funds that are distributed by this administration and any subsequent or prior administration. They distribute most of the funds.
It is very important, as we all look at our campaign contributions, to sort out in any of them which are in any way tainted by Mr. Abramoff and that the White House comes to the table and is as open as we have been. I believe it is very important. This isn't a partisan issue. Republicans have been calling for the White House to come clean on this, and Democrats are doing the same.
If we are going to restore confidence in our Government, it starts with simple openness, not saying: Oh, this is privileged, this is secret. I will tell you right now, we all learned it from our moms and dads. When somebody says, this is secret, watch out. Our Government is supposed to be open, not secret.
I hope there will be strong support for this particular amendment . I believe its timing is crucial. We can't let any more time elapse.
There are calls for--and I am joining them--a special prosecutor in this particular case. But even before that debate begins, let us have everyone come clean on these meetings, contributions, and the like.
I thank my colleague from Montana, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, for his generosity of spirit in allowing me to discuss this issue. Technically, of course, it isn't a matter of the Finance Committee jurisdiction, but I believe the timing is so important that we should have a vote on this.
Thank you very much. I yield back whatever time remains.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I very much thank the Senator from California for her terrific service to her State and to the Nation.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I also congratulate our colleague, the Senator from California, for her diligence in pursuing this issue. Senator Boxer has an interest in fairness and equity at all times, and open government. I am so pleased that we can rely on her and her staff to research this matter and to bring it to the public's attention.
Everyone knows there is a cloud over Washington these days. It is a cloud of corruption that challenges the fundamental concept of democracy in our great country, one that says the President, under the guise of an act of patriotism, can spy on people, innocent people, invade their privacy totally, and yet withhold records that are vital to the public's confidence in government, withhold data that is required in this scandal we are now witnessing which hangs over Washington.
This deep-seated corruption was exposed as part of an investigation into the activities of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff . We now know that he committed despicable acts against his own clients and that he conspired at the same time with certain Members of Congress. His contacts with the White House and his friends are still very much a mystery. Imagine that--contacts with the President of the United States hidden from the public. It is incomprehensible. President Bush refuses to disclose his contacts with Mr. Abramoff for reasons that are unclear. If there is no wrongdoing, there should be nothing to hide.
I wish to quote President Bush from a statement he made when running for President in 2000. He said, and I quote him:
Americans are tired of investigations, scandals, and the best way to get rid of them is to elect a new President--
We are talking about 2000.
--who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and dignity to the White House.
What an empty statement that has proven to be. President Bush pledged to run an ethical White House. Now, as we see, those words seem almost hypocritical. At the very least, in order to keep this pledge, President Bush must release information on contacts between him, his staff, and Mr. Abramoff . What is he ashamed of? Whether he is ashamed of it or not, he ought to release it to clear the air. The public wants these contacts disclosed. The President needs to help the truth come out, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And he should be assisting us in this investigation.
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says President Bush does not know Mr. Abramoff . But there is stark evidence to the contrary. According to Washingtonian magazine, Abramoff said that not only did he know the President but that the President knew the names of Abramoff's children and asked about them during their meeting.
There appears to be a long trail of contacts between Mr. Abramoff and the Bush White House. For starters, President Bush put Mr. Abramoff on his 2000 Presidential transition team--a pretty important job. Mr. Abramoff was then able to get his allies appointed to key positions at the Department of the Interior. Why the Department of the Interior? Because it regulates Indian gaming issues that were central to Mr. Abramoff's lobbying business.
He was also one of President Bush's top campaign fundraisers, a so-called Pioneer. He raised over $100,000 for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. That was the definition of ``Pioneer''--big-time money.
According to Time and Newsweek magazines, Mr. Abramoff also sold access to the White House through payments sent to Grover Norquist's front organization, Americans for Tax Reform. Senator Boxer displayed a check which was made out to Indian tribes which paid upwards of $25,000 to Norquist for access to President Bush and his top adviser, Karl Rove. Mr. Abramoff bragged to one his clients, Tyco, that he talked to Karl Rove about their issues. And David Safavian, a White House official now under indictment, funneled confidential information to Abramoff to help Tyco.
Mr. Abramoff's own billing records show that his office had almost 200 contacts with the Bush administration in only its first 10 months. The officials listed as contacts included the then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and Vice President Cheney's top advisers.
As far back as 1997, there is evidence of contacts between then-Governor Bush and Mr. Abramoff . Abramoff charged his client at the time, the Northern Mariana Islands, to get Governor George W. Bush to write a letter praising the island's education plan. Governor Bush did write such a letter to the island government on July 18, 1997, with a ``cc'' to one of Mr. Abramoff's deputies.
The bottom line is that this amendment --once again, I salute my colleague from California for bringing this up, and I intend to support it vigorously--the bottom line is that this amendment urges the President to clear the air. The American people want to know whether the Bush White House was complicit with Mr. Abramoff's schemes. Maybe Mr. Abramoff was exaggerating his contacts with the White House. That is possible. But there is only one way to find out--release the records.
We are seeing withholding of information by the White House. I sit on the Committee on Government Accountability. The Republican chairman, Susan Collins, has asked the White House for information related to the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina. We cannot get that. There has been a public display of the requests for that information.
Does this suggest this White House is committed to keeping the information--information that belongs to the public--private, within their confines so they can do anything they want and not be challenged with their conduct related to this issue? It looks like a constant pattern.
I urge my colleagues to support honest and open government and to vote for the Boxer amendment .
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
