National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 - Motion to Proceed - Continued
Floor Speech
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued -- (Senate - August 01, 2008)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when Senator Grassley comes to the floor and speaks of the Midwestern need, he speaks of an issue of which I have intimate personal knowledge. In 1993, it was my district, my congressional district, inundated by these floods.
I spent countless hours and days working with the brave volunteers and the National Guard and others to try to save buildings and homes and farms, filling sandbags and doing everything we could to fight off the flooding of the Illinois River and the Mississippi River.
This flood, which was not supposed to occur 15 years later, matched the intensity of the 1993 flood, in some places it overwhelmed the intensity in others, particularly in the State of Iowa. The scenes Senator Grassley has depicted on the floor and have been described to me by Senator Harkin are absolutely heartbreaking.
Cedar Rapids and so many other communities were devastated. I wish to make a point for the Record. It is this: In the 26 years I have served in the House and the Senate, I have never--repeat never--voted against emergency disaster relief for any part of our country.
I have felt that when that occurs, we need to come together as an American family and help others, even if it did not affect my State of Illinois. Time and again, I have voted for that disaster relief, believing the day might come when I would need it for the people I represented. I sincerely believe that. I believe that what Senator Grassley has offered, in terms of additional assistance for Iowa, and perhaps even for my State, in the style that was offered to Katrina victims may be a good idea. I have not had a chance to study it. But I am inclined to support it.
I believe it could be a valuable addition to the assistance which we provided.
I wish to make it clear from the outset that what I am about to say does not reflect the fact that I could end up cosponsoring the bill offered by Senator Grassley and work and vote for it and probably will before it is all over.
But I cannot understand what happened here last night. The Senate adjourned. We passed the adjournment resolution. Virtually everyone had gone. The floor was empty but for Senator Grassley, myself and maybe one other Member and the Presiding Officer.
Then, at 10 o'clock at night, Senator Grassley came on the floor and made a unanimous consent request for this assistance for Iowa. Now, he is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. I do not serve on that committee. What he is asking for would be a measure that would be considered by his committee. I looked around for Senator Baucus, the chairman of the committee who works with Senator Grassley. He had left for the evening, as most other Members had.
To think that at that moment in time, with virtually no one in the Senate, after the adjournment resolution had been passed, when the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was not on the floor, the Senator came and made his request.
Now, any Senator can make any request at any time. But it was not made at a moment in time where one might expect success. This is a matter that should have been brought up weeks ago, weeks ago by the Senator from Iowa, and so many others, in the Senate Finance Committee, resolved and brought to the floor.
But it was not until the Chamber was empty late at night that it was brought up. I spoke on behalf of Senator Baucus and I objected. I did because it concerned me that the day before, we had a measure on the floor to not only help Iowa, which truly needs help, but to help Illinois, to help all the States that have encountered disasters during the course of this last year.
Senator Grassley's request relates primarily to the Midwestern area, which I am part of, and to disasters which occurred after May 20. There are many States that have faced many disasters which would not be helped by Senator Grassley's bill. He made that conscious choice. He wanted to help his own State and, of course, he would. I would want to help my State first too.
But in the scheme of things, do we not owe an obligation to other States that have faced disasters to try to treat them fairly as well? How can some Senators on the Republican side come and vote against disaster relief on Wednesday or Thursday, and then come the next day and say: I want my own version of the bill--late at night--let's make sure we get it passed.
The Senate does not work that way and it should not. We should be conscious of the disasters across the United States and be evenhanded. Now, the Senator raised my name in the debate this morning, referring to me as the majority whip. I had not planned on being on the Senate floor. But my staff said: The Senator from Iowa is making reference to you. I came to the floor. I wanted to make sure the Record is complete and at least reflects my own views of what happened last night and what should happen moving forward.
The Senator from Iowa said this morning, and I wish to quote what he said because I think it is very important. The Senator from Iowa, in describing why he voted against S. 3335, which includes the energy tax extenders, $8 billion for the highway trust fund so 400,000 jobs across America would not be lost; money to protect families from the alternative minimum tax penalties; the Wellstone Mental Health Parity Bill; and, disaster assistance for the State of Iowa, the Senator voted against that.
This morning here is how he explained it:
We, the minority, want to stay on the No. 1 problem affecting this country and, that is, the high cost of gasoline and the energy crisis that is facing the Nation.
That is how he explained his vote against the measure. Yet he comes to the floor and asks the Senate to move off that energy matter so his bill can pass. The Senator cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it both ways, when we bring a bill to the floor to help the State of Iowa and other disaster-stricken States and you vote against it saying, ``I do not want to move off the Energy bill,'' and then, while we are still on the Energy bill, make a unanimous consent to move off it to help your State.
If we are going to be fair to all the States that have faced disasters, then we should pass this bill. I am going to give you a chance to help Iowa now.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 6049
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy Job Creation Act of 2008, that the amendment at the desk, the text of which is S. 3335, be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements be printed in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield to Senator Grassley for the purpose of his explaining his objection so the Senator's objection is in the Record. But do I not want to surrender the floor. Is that possible?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yes, I will take that opportunity. I hope I get to have an opportunity to offer a unanimous consent request as well for our side of the aisle, if you want to be completely fair. In the last few weeks in this body, we have not necessarily been fair.
So let me take advantage of the majority whip's invitation to respond. First of all, he knows, because he is in the leadership, that I gave the majority party information, at least 48 hours ago, and maybe 72 hours ago, that this week I was going to seek a unanimous consent request, and all day yesterday we were denied that opportunity, even at the point before adjournment and my speaking to Leader Reid about when can I do my unanimous consent request.
You know what I was told? After the adjournment resolution. So do not say I did not make an attempt to do it and do not say you did not know about it. If you wanted to cooperate with us, we could have had that cooperation. But there does not seem to be that sort of comity in the Senate anymore.
Another point you made was that I had a chance to work for a tax relief package for flood victims. The bill you voted for and you asked unanimous consent on did less for your constituents than the legislation we had been working on for 2 weeks.
Then, he brings up the point about not working through committee. Well, most of the work on this bill has been so we can get a consensus package, working with even Chairman Rangel's staff, so it is not only bipartisan but bicameral, so we can put together something and get it done very quickly in the same consensus manner that we were able to help the victims of New Orleans.
Then, the other reason: Why would the Senator from Illinois cosponsor our bill if it was not the right bill for his State and for the Midwest and for this disaster?
We have always tried to do things as quickly as can be done when people hurt. That is why when we got back after Katrina--on Tuesday or Wednesday--we had $10 billion that we were going to give to New Orleans. Before the end of the week was up, it was $60 billion, in 2005.
Now, do you think the committee had an opportunity to work its will on that? No. They were responding to need. Don't you think your constituents hurt across from Burlington? They may be still underwater. I do not know. A couple weeks ago, they were when I was talking on the radio station. In Burlington you had constituents who still had just the roofs of houses showing. Don't you think they need help right now?
So I think, first of all, procedural-wise, either the majority whip does not know what is going on when I notify his cloakroom that I am going to offer it or else he does not care or he wants to mislead.
The second thing is, he is not voting for the bills and pushing the bills that will help his constituents the most, and we still do not have the relief.
So that is my response to the Senator from Illinois.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would just say to the Senator from Iowa, I was not part of his conversation with the majority leader as to when he was going to offer his unanimous consent request. He offered it after the chairman of the Finance Committee had left and virtually all the members had left.
Whether he had an opportunity to do that before, I do not know. He did not make a request of me. I was not aware of it. But he certainly met with Senator Baucus during the course of this week and had ample opportunity to raise this issue. It is something that should have been resolved between the two of them before Senator Baucus left. I think he would understand, as I do, that is a problem for Senator Baucus to be gone and to make a unanimous consent request.
One thing the Senator from Iowa did not say was why he objected to this bill. Again, he voted against it. Now he objected again--this bill that does contain assistance for my State and his State because of the recent flood disaster. The simple reason is, he disagrees with many of the other provisions of this bill and decided he would vote against it. That is his right as a Senator.
I will tell him again, I may find his bill that he is offering today to be the right bill for my State and for his State as well and support him. Even if his unanimous consent request prevailed today, the House is gone. We will be gone in just a matter of hours. Nothing is going to happen to his request until we return in September.
Maybe after the August break, and a little bit of time and reflection, we can come back and find what we need; that is, a bipartisan approach to helping a lot of innocent victims of this flooding in the Midwest and victims of other disasters across the United States.
As much as I feel for my own home State and his State of Iowa, there are many other disaster victims who need a helping hand as well. I think we ought to consider all of them when we return.
So at this point, Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor and say to the Senator from Iowa, we have worked closely on things before. But when he raised my name on the Senate floor this morning, when I was not present, I felt I had to come down and explain what happened last night and the situation we find ourselves in today.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 2291
Mr. President, I have one unanimous consent request to ask, which I do not think has an objection.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 869, S. 2291, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act; that an Akaka substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bennett, I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The senior Senator from Iowa is recognized.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 3322
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before the Senator from Illinois leaves the floor, I want to ask unanimous consent to bring up a bill to which he is probably going to object. But I want him to know that people on this side of the aisle want to move things along.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 3322, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the bill be held at the desk pending further House action.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is the same request that was made last night.
On behalf of Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I object.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source